rea_patch_text_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses automatic backup to <file>.reapat_txt_bak, in-memory simulation of all ops with whole-batch rejection on any failure, post-write readback verification with rollback from backup, and dry_run preview semantics. It omits what `force` overrides and any permission/encoding caveats, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the op table, then the safety-net paragraph, with no filler. The op table is long but every line corresponds to a genuine schema gap, so the length is earned.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: atomicity, backup, rollback, verification, and preview. The remaining gaps (`force`, `encoding`, and what a successful call reports back) are minor but real.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the hardest part: the `ops` array items are untyped in the schema, and the description supplies the full op vocabulary (replace/regex/line/json/ini) with field meanings including count and occurrence. Two of five parameters, `force` and `encoding`, get no explanation at all, so it falls short of complete.

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 opening line names a specific verb and resource: patch text/code files, and adds scope ('多语言通用'). It implicitly separates this tool from the binary-oriented sibling rea_patch_apply by specifying text/code files, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the split.

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 explains how each op type behaves and that dry_run only previews, which implies usage for the common cases. However, it never states when to choose this tool over rea_patch_text_search, rea_patch_text_verify, or rea_patch_apply, nor when not to use it (e.g., binary files).

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