st.resource.patch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does reveal two important traits: confirmation is mandatory and a snapshot is created before writing. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it stays silent on failure modes, rollback, or whether the patch replaces or merges.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that leads with the action and packs two key behavioral constraints into a compact space. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this description is too sparse. An agent is left to guess what 'supported ST resource' means, what the patch object should look like, what snapshotLabel does, and what happens after the write.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only addresses 'confirm' by stating it must be true, and leaves 'uri', 'patch', and 'snapshotLabel' without any explanation. Given the schema provides no descriptions, this is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Patch a supported ST resource'), so an agent knows it is a write/modify operation on resource state. However, it does not distinguish this generic resource patch from sibling patch tools like st.config.patch or st.mvu.chat_state.patch, so it falls short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It mentions a hard requirement ('Requires confirm: true') but that is a call-time constraint, not a condition for selecting this tool versus another patch or read tool. No sibling tools are referenced.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.