cocos_apply_post_build_patches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it applies patches to a build directory, stops on first error to prevent cascading failures, and returns a structured result object. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidelines, return format, and behavioral detail—all in four concise sentences that each serve a distinct purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return format and error behavior. However, it doesn't fully cover parameter details or potential side effects, leaving some gaps given the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains that 'platform' determines which patches are applied and that 'dry_run=True' enables preview mode. However, it doesn't clarify 'project_path' semantics or parameter formats, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific action ('Apply registered patches') to a specific resource ('build/<platform>/') with a clear scope ('for platform'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cocos_build' by explaining its specialized role in post-build patching, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states that 'cocos_build invokes this automatically on success' and specifies two direct-use scenarios: 'dry-run preview' and 're-apply without rebuilding.' This gives clear context for when to call it directly versus relying on the sibling tool.

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