kirikiri_stage_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and optional packing, omitting what 'next patch folder' means, whether existing folders are overwritten, or any process details like file modifications or side effects.

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 single-sentence description is tightly worded and front-loaded with the core action, but it is almost too sparse for a tool with six parameters, sacrificing necessary context for brevity.

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?

The description is severely underspecified: six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 17% parameter coverage. It fails to explain required inputs, the meaning of 'next patch folder,' or the behavior of pack_patch, making confident invocation impossible.

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 only 17% (only 'base' is described). The description hints at 'pack' via 'optional pack_patch' but does not explain required game_dir, source_dir, stem, or descramble, leaving parameter meanings largely ambiguous.

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 action (descramble a tree) and the destination (next patch folder), distinguishing this tool from siblings like kirikiri_descramble_tree by adding staging and optional packing context.

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 implies a use case—staging a descrambled tree into the next patch folder—and mentions optional pack_patch, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like kirikiri_descramble_tree or kirikiri_pack_patch.

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