Validar patch (sem aplicar)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms non-destructive behavior ('sem aplicar'). Adds behavioral details: compares source file mtime and points out older sources. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, and important date semantics.

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 simple tool with one well-documented parameter and readOnlyHint annotation, description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral detail. Missing explicit mention of return value/format, but the output is implied ('aponta fontes...').

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% with a clear description of the parameter 'arquivoPatch'. Description does not add extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action: validate a patch file against the RPO without applying. It distinguishes from sibling tds_patch_apply and specifies the file types (.ptm/.upd/.pak).

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?

Explicitly recommends using this tool before tds_patch_apply ('Gate recomendado antes de tds_patch_apply'). Also clarifies the date semantics, aiding correct usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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