create_patch

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as required permissions, output format, or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files). The optional outputFile behavior is only in the schema, not in the description.

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?

A single concise sentence. While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 lacks context about the patch format (e.g., unified diff), how the diff is computed, or its compatibility with apply_patch. For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only paraphrases 'source' and 'target' as files/directories. No additional context for the optional outputFile parameter.

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 it creates a patch file from differences between files or directories, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like apply_patch (which applies patches) and compare_files (which likely shows diffs).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_files or apply_patch. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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