apply_patch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the SHA validation as a safety measure and lists supported operations. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, atomicity, or whether the file is backed up. Transparency is moderate but incomplete.

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 at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly lists supported operations, earning its place efficiently.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects (operations, SHA validation) but lacks details on behavior when expected_sha256 mismatches, operation execution order, or error handling. Adequate but not complete for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all four parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the supported operation types already listed in the enum. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 applies JSON patch operations to a file within a Direct session's repo_path, validates expected_sha256, and lists supported operation types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sync_file or get_diff, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives. It lists operations but provides no guidance on when to choose apply_patch instead of sync_file or other file manipulation tools. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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