frida_interceptor_replace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool replaces the implementation and mentions the replacement_js parameter details and revert_after auto-revert. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, persistence beyond session, or success/failure conditions. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement, a single contrast line, and four bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema and is a mutation tool. While the description covers what the tool does and its parameters, it does not mention what the return value indicates (e.g., success/failure) or error conditions. Given the complexity of replacing a native function, additional details on behavior would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant meaning: target is 'process name or pid', function_addr is 'hex address', replacement_js is 'JS code returning a NativeCallback', and revert_after is 'auto-revert after N seconds'. This goes beyond the schema's property titles to clarify purpose and format.

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 tool replaces a native function using Interceptor.replace, differentiating it from intercept (which logs). It specifies the verb 'replace' and the resource 'native function', and the sibling list includes frida_interceptor_revert for reverting, so the purpose is well-distinguished.

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 explicitly contrasts with intercept tools ('Unlike intercept (which logs), this replaces the implementation.'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among siblings like frida_interceptor_revert or other hooking tools, missing an opportunity for fuller guidance.

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