frida_memory_patch_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool handles instruction cache flushing (ARM) and is safer for code regions, which are key behavioral traits. Missing details on reversibility or side effects, but adequate for basic transparency.

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: three short sentences covering purpose, safety, and parameters. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and safety context. It lacks details on return values or prerequisites, but for a simple patch operation it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does so for all three: target (process name or pid), address (hex string), hex_bytes (hex-encoded bytes) with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema.

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's action 'Patch executable code at an address using Memory.patchCode', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it handles instruction cache flushing and is safer than raw write_memory for code regions.

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 compares this tool to 'raw write_memory', indicating when to use it ('for code regions'). However, it does not provide explicit scenarios where it should not be used or other alternatives.

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