generate_patch

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: reveals legacy nature, lack of framework detection, and output contents (patch, confidence, explanation). Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with key facts (legacy, output, comparison). Every sentence adds value.

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 has 4 parameters, output schema, and sibling comparisons, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and key distinctions without redundancy. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description implies the role of job_id/issue_id and file_path/file_content but does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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's a LEGACY issue-based fix generator that returns a search/replace patch with confidence and explanation. Distinct from suggest_fix, which is framework-aware and preferred.

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?

Explicitly advises to use generate_patch only for legacy job_id/issue_id consumers, and compares to suggest_fix as the preferred alternative with framework-awareness.

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