Propose a safe modification to a decompilation config by specifying a symbol and address, then inspect the unified diff before applying changes.
Prepare a safe proposed modification to a decompilation config and inspect the unified diff before applying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to configuration file | |
| address | Yes | Address or value in hex (e.g. 0x80000400) | |
| symbolName | Yes | Symbol name to update or add |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals that the operation is non-committal and that the output is a unified diff, but 'safe' is unsubstantiated: it does not say whether anything is written to disk, whether the proposal is persisted, what permissions are needed, or what happens on error.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the safety posture, and the verification artifact with no filler. Only the vague qualifier 'safe' slightly dilutes it.
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?
For a three-parameter config-mutation proposal with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the intent and the returned diff but leaves the write semantics, error behavior, and relationship to the apply step undocumented. Adequate but with clear 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (path, symbolName, address) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Prepare a safe proposed modification'), the resource ('decompilation config'), and the deliverable ('inspect the unified diff'). This clearly separates it from decomp_config_apply_changes and decomp_config_inspect even though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 phrase 'before applying' implies the propose-then-apply workflow and positions this as the preview step ahead of decomp_config_apply_changes, but that ordering is inferred rather than stated. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over decomp_config_validate or decomp_config_inspect, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.