Vary Legacy TD Patch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a read operation. The description adds that it generates variants but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but adds minimal extra context.

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 with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the legacy status and preferred alternative, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable and well-structured.

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 relatively simple tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent the tool is legacy and not recommended for new builds, which is sufficient context for tool selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (all parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers; it merely restates the purpose of generating variants.

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 tool generates PatchPlan variants for compatibility/expert workflows, and identifies it as legacy. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'PatchPlan variants' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings by directing users to the preferred td_brain_plan/td_brain_execute workflow.

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 states to prefer the newer td_brain_plan → td_brain_execute workflow and advises against using this tool for new creative builds. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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