patch_asm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say the operation mutates the IDB, whether changes require an explicit `idb_save`, whether patches are reversible, or how failures on invalid addresses are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

It is a single six-word sentence with no wasted phrasing and the action is front-loaded. That brevity, however, comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient density.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the mutation/save lifecycle, batch-vs-single items semantics, and any notion of what the tool returns or how errors surface.

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 50%: the nested `addr` and `asm` fields are documented, and the Chinese instance_id description explains its routing purpose and points at instance_list. However, the top-level `items` wrapper (array-or-object union) is undocumented, and the description adds no formatting or semantics beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Patch assembly instructions') and mentions the address-based target. But it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as `patch`, `put_int`, or `define_code`, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `patch`, `define_code`, or `put_int`, nor any stated prerequisites. The one routing hint (call instance_list first) lives only in the instance_id schema field, not the description.

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