patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It confirms this is a mutation operation but does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid addresses), reversibility, or required permissions. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity limits completeness.

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 it is a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema (not shown in description), the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, bytes written). It does not address return values or error handling, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 50% (the 'patches' property itself lacks a description, though sub-properties are described). The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, simply reiterating 'hex data' and 'memory addresses'. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Patch'), the resource ('bytes at memory addresses'), and the format ('hex data'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'patch_asm' (assembly patching) and 'get_bytes' (read only).

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 'patch_asm'. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases. The description is silent on selection criteria.

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