patch_management_patch_1

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

No annotations provided; description only notes HTTP method POST for a read operation without explanation. Does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or data scoping beyond softwareType.

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?

Single sentence including tech label and usage note. Concise but omits critical context; front-loads key info but lacks structure for multi-parameter tool.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description only addresses softwareType. Lacks explanation of pagination, query string, patch identifiers, and return value format, leaving significant gaps for agent use.

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?

Adds value by specifying allowed values for softwareType (APP|OS), but incorrectly claims it's required. Other 6 parameters (q, from, size, etc.) are not elaborated beyond schema descriptions; schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3.

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?

Clearly states it returns a list of patches, specifies required parameter and allowed values (APP|OS). Includes HTTP method and path, distinguishing it from sibling tools like patch_management_cve_info.

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?

Claims softwareType is required, but schema lists it as optional (nullable, default null). Provides allowed values, but contradicts schema, misleading the agent.

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