portal_patch

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: hash-based conflict detection, atomic writes via tmp+rename, bottom-to-top patch application, rejection of overlapping patches, auto_newline behavior, and error return format.

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 well-structured with workflow, parameter format, and notes. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While a bit long, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, conflict detection, multiple steps), the description covers conflict detection workflow, atomic writes, error handling, patch format, and auto_newline behavior. The existence of an output schema likely covers return values, so no gap.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds significant meaning for key parameters: it details the format of patches_json as a list of objects with start, end, contents, range_hash. It also explains file_hash and auto_newline. Host and path are not elaborated but are self-explanatory in context.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Apply patches to a remote file with hash-based conflict detection.' It uses a specific verb ('Apply patches') and resource ('remote file'), and the workflow distinguishes it from sibling tools like portal_read and portal_exec.

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 workflow steps (1. portal_read, 2. portal_patch) and error handling guidance. It explains when to use (for atomic patching with conflict detection) and implicitly when not to (if file modified by others).

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