kubectl_patch

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true, indicating potential for state changes. The description adds that the tool uses three patch types (strategic, merge, json), which is useful but does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or idempotency. The description adds some value but does not fully disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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?

Description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Update'. It is concise and avoids redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, three patch types), a slightly longer description could improve clarity without becoming verbose. Still efficient.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description is too brief for a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, an enum, and destructive behavior. It does not explain the purpose of dryRun, context, or patchFile vs patchData. The tool's complexity warrants more context than provided.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no additional context (e.g., differences between patch types, when to use patchFile vs patchData). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'field(s) of a resource', specifying three patch types which differentiate it from sibling tools like kubectl_apply (full resource update) or kubectl_delete (deletion). This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear differentiation.

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 like kubectl_apply or kubectl_create. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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