edict_patch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions running 'the full check pipeline' after patching, which hints at validation behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like error handling, performance implications, authentication needs, or what happens when patches fail. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core action, second provides usage guidance, third explains patch structure. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does and when to use it) is front-loaded.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the 'full check pipeline' entails, what happens when patches conflict, what errors might be returned, or what the response format looks like. The agent lacks critical information about this tool's behavior and outputs.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds some context about patch structure ('Each patch specifies a nodeId, an operation, and the relevant field/value') but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Apply surgical patches to an Edict AST by nodeId, then run the full check pipeline') and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining its specialized use case ('fix errors without resubmitting the entire AST'). It explicitly contrasts with the likely bulk operations of other tools like edict_check or edict_validate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to fix errors without resubmitting the entire AST'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that likely process complete ASTs. It implies this is for targeted corrections rather than initial validation or bulk operations.

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