Describe patch

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description does not need to re-argue safety. It adds genuinely useful behavior context: the exact shape of the payload (modules keyed by id/type/settings, "bypass": true only when bypassed, cables as port-to-port maps) and that it reports live clock state. It stops short of saying whether the read is a snapshot or paginated, but for a zero-argument state read that is minor.

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?

One dense sentence defining the payload plus a two-word imperative, with the action front-loaded ahead of the field list. Parentheticals carry real information (bypass semantics, cable key format) rather than filler, and nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description has to carry the return contract and it largely does — module fields, bypass flag, cable encoding, polyphony, clock. What remains unstated is the ordering/identity of modules beyond id and what the nested "settings" object contains, so an agent still learns some of the shape only after calling.

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 tool takes no parameters and the schema correctly declares an empty object with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Describe the current patch") and immediately enumerates the returned content: modules with id, type, settings and bypass state, cable routing as "moduleId:port" pairs, polyphony and clock state. No sibling offers a full-state read, so an agent can separate it from add_module, set_param, list_presets, etc. without opening a schema.

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?

"Call it first." gives an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent this is the orientation call before mutating anything. It does not spell out when not to call it or name an alternative, but there is no competing read-state tool in the sibling list, so the gap is small.

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