patch_farming_context

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds value beyond them: the tier gate, the shared/multi-tenant nature of the context, and that the server owns the revision counter — implying optimistic concurrency. It does not say what happens on a revision conflict or whether the patch merges or replaces.

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 two body sentences are tight, but the bracketed capability/API/authority preamble occupies the front-loaded position with infrastructure tags rather than the purpose. It is not bloated, but the most scannable slot is spent on metadata.

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?

This is a mutation of shared state with a nested freeform patch object, zero schema documentation, and no output schema. For that complexity the description should explain patch key semantics and conflict behavior; it does not, leaving the agent unable to call it safely without guessing.

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% across four required parameters. The description only mentions sessionId and agentAddress to say the server 'controls' them — which is confusing since both are required inputs — and says nothing about sessionToken or the freeform `patch` object, whose allowed keys and merge semantics are completely undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Patch the shared FarmingContext for a live agent session'. An agent can distinguish this from get_farming_context by the patch/read contrast, but the description never names that sibling or states the relationship explicitly, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 bracketed header discloses an access prerequisite (available_with_tier_gate, tier: pioneer_plus) and the body implies a live session is required, which is real pre-call context. However, there is no statement of when to patch versus calling get_farming_context first, or what conditions should precede a mutation.

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