Update the design selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only hints at mutation through 'apply' and cross-host normalization through 'normalized'. It does not state whether the patch merges or replaces properties, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects might occur.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized, but the unclear jargon 'normalized patch' prevents it from being a truly excellent concise definition.

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 mutation tool with a complex nested patch object, an optional host parameter, and no output schema, this description is too minimal. An agent would be unable to determine what properties the patch should contain, how the selection is identified, or what the result of the operation will be. It also fails to reference related tools that could provide selection context.

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 should compensate, but it does not explain the 'patch' object structure or the optional 'host' parameter. The schema itself is detailed, yet the description fails to clarify how to build a valid patch or how 'host' influences the call.

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 uses a clear action verb ('apply') and identifies the target ('patch to the current host selection'), distinguishing it from the sibling getters and creators. However, the terms 'normalized patch' and 'host selection' are not defined, which leaves some ambiguity about exactly what is being changed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_selection_context or create_screen. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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