apply_patch

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions execution timing, background job support, and job_id returns, which is good. But it does not describe side effects (e.g., file modifications, backup behavior, or whether the patch is applied in-place), leaving uncertainty about the tool's impact.

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 moderately concise but front-loaded with a generic 'Kali Agent MCP tool' prefix and a sentence about execution timing that could be more integrated. It could be restructured to state the primary operation first, then timing options, for better agent comprehension.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (though an output schema exists), parameter defaults, or validation. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional information.

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?

The schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 5 timing-related parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, on_timeout) but ignores critical parameters like 'patch_text', 'cwd', 'strip', 'check_only', and 'make_backup'. This omission leaves an agent unable to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 implies the tool applies a patch via its name, but never explicitly states what 'apply_patch' does (e.g., apply a unified diff to files). It focuses on execution timing options, leaving the core action vague. This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish from sibling tools like 'revert_patch' or 'exec_command'.

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 description provides guidance on when to use different timeout behaviors (continue_background vs kill/return_partial), which is helpful. However, it lacks any comparison to sibling tools or context on when applying a patch is appropriate versus using other patch-related or execution tools.

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