hot_patch_live_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It notes that disk binaries are untouched and that trampolines are injected into memory, but it omits critical context for a destructive live-memory mutation: required privileges, process-state assumptions, reversibility, failure modes, and the purpose of the optional safety check.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the broader underspecification of this complex operation.

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?

This is a complex, potentially destructive live-process mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. One descriptive sentence is not enough to cover permissions, expected behavior, safety checks, return values, or operational constraints.

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 the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline but does not enrich interpretation of pid, memory_address, patch_bytes_hex, or expected_original_bytes.

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 states a specific action ("Injects atomic hot-patch memory trampolines") and target ("running processes"), and its phrase "without touching disk binaries" implicitly contrasts with disk-patching siblings such as patch_binary_executable. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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 implies use against a live running process, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over patch_binary_executable or generate_frida_instrumentation.

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