ateam_github_patch

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It clearly states it is a write operation that commits changes, describes two modes with their effects, and warns about the default branch (dev). The description could mention potential overwrite risks or undo capabilities, but overall is transparent.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It front-loads the purpose and mode distinction, uses efficient language without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, two modes, no output schema), the description covers usage context, prerequisites (read file first), branch strategy, and emergency handling. It lacks details on commit behavior (e.g., response format) but is sufficiently complete for an effective AI agent.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two modes (how content, search, replace interact) and providing default context for ref. This goes beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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 edits a file in the GitHub repo and commits, distinguishing two modes (full file replacement vs search/replace). This sets it apart from siblings like ateam_github_read (read-only) and ateam_github_write (presumably a different write operation).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use full file for new/small files, search/replace for large files (>5KB), always read the file first, and defaults to dev branch. It also advises using ateam_github_promote for normal dev→main and only ref:'main' for emergencies.

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