Aplicar patch no RPO

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals this is a destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating it alters the environment and clarifying the version-checking logic (default skip older fonts, force with flag). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states purpose and effect. The second sentence explains default behavior, the override flag, and a recommendation. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's effect (alter environment), default behavior, and the force flag. It recommends validation beforehand. However, it does not describe return values or error handling, and could mention that it operates on the currently connected environment (implied by 'ambiente conectado').

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of 'aplicarAntigos' by explaining its effect, but does not add significant new information beyond the schema descriptions. The parameter 'arquivoPatch' is only mentioned implicitly in the context of applying a patch.

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 verb 'APLICA' and the resource 'patch no RPO', specifying it is a deploy operation that alters the environment. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing tds_patch_validate and explaining default behavior regarding newer fonts.

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 recommends using tds_patch_validate before this tool, providing a clear usage sequence. It explains the default behavior (apply only newer fonts) and how to override with aplicarAntigos=true. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like tds_patch_generate or tds_patch_info for alternative use cases.

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