rush_patch_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it states that the tool defaults to dry-run, that promotion requires artifact-write permission, and that it returns status, findings, and summary. It does not explain effects of circuit_breaker or precise side effects, but the safety-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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 two compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every clause carries useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema titles/defaults.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core safety behavior and return categories, which is a reasonable baseline. It leaves gaps around circuit_breaker semantics, what promotion actually changes, how findings/status are structured, and when to prefer a sibling tool.

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 description adds meaning for dry_run ('Defaults to dry-run'), allow_artifact_write ('promotion requires artifact-write permission'), and patch_file ('unified diff'), which goes beyond the bare schema. It does not explain circuit_breaker or path semantics, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 names a specific action ('Verify'), a concrete object ('a contained unified diff'), and a location ('an isolated checkout'), so an agent can tell what the tool operates on. It is clear, but it does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of full 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?

The description implies the tool should be used for safely verifying contained patches in an isolated checkout, and the dry-run/permission note gives contextual conditions. However, it never states when not to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives, leaving routing partly to inference.

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