perch_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet discloses almost nothing: it doesn't confirm this is a mutation, doesn't state atomicity (all-or-nothing vs partial apply on failure), what happens when oldString is not found, or any permission/auth requirements. 'Surgical changes' hints at precise string replacement but is not elaborated.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the change shape given second. No filler, though the field list is a bare enumeration rather than prose that earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits failure behavior, atomicity, what panes model/output represent, and the sync implications of settle, leaving an agent under-informed before invoking.

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 coverage is 50%; the top-level 'settle' param is already documented in-schema. The description lists the nested change fields ({pane, oldString, newString, replaceAll?, nth?}), which the schema names but does not describe, so it marginally aids understanding of the array item shape without explaining the semantics of nth or replaceAll.

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?

States a specific verb (Apply) and resource (multiple surgical changes) plus a scope qualifier ('in one call'). This implicitly distinguishes it from the single-edit sibling perch_edit, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'multiple surgical changes in one call' implies the batching use case, so an agent can infer it is preferable to repeated single edits. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative to steer toward.

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