frida_memory_protect

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 declares the action ('change memory protection') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the change is reversible, required permissions, potential to crash the target, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise: one sentence plus a brief parameter list. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then details. No redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (changing memory protection, a delicate operation) and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate parameter semantics. It does not explain return values, error handling, or process attachment prerequisites. More context would be expected for a fully reliable 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter list adds essential meaning. It explains target as 'process name or pid', address as 'start address (hex string)', size as 'region size in bytes', and protection as 'string like 'rwx', 'r-x', etc.'. This is clear and goes beyond the schema, but lacks details like address format constraints or minimum size.

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 action ('Change memory protection') and the resource ('a region'). The parameter list further clarifies the scope. However, it could more explicitly distinguish from siblings like frida_memory_query_protection or frida_memory_alloc, but the verb+resource is specific enough.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., frida_memory_query_protection, frida_memory_alloc). It does not mention prerequisites like being attached to a process or possible side effects. The description focuses entirely on parameters without usage context.

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