contract.patch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the 5.00 USDC x402 payment requirement, which is an auth/cost constraint the annotations do not carry. It stops short of explaining the payment-then-patch flow, but the added cost gate is real value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the differentiator and the payment requirement. 'Premium' is marketing filler, but otherwise every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the payment prerequisite, though it omits the concrete x402 payment steps an agent would need before it can produce a valid paymentHash. Nearly complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, so contractAddress, paymentHash, and the optional referralWallet kickback are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (patch/rewrite) and resource (vulnerable Solidity smart contract code), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling contract.audit with 'Not only audits but rewrites.' An agent can tell what it does and how it differs from the audit family without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the contrast with contract.audit suggests using this tool when you want remediation, not just a report. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement of what happens if you only need an audit, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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