apply_patch

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior. The description adds value by mentioning validation of expected_sha256 before applying, which is a key safety guard. It also enumerates supported operations, though it does not detail failure modes or atomicity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by key details. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not mention review_id, which may be required in some operations. It also leaves unspecified what happens on SHA mismatch or overall return values. Given the complexity, this is a notable gap.

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 80% and each parameter has a description. The description reinforces the meaning of expected_sha256 (validation) and the operation types, but does not add significant syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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, using a specific verb and resource. It also lists the supported operation types, distinguishing it from file creation/deletion tools.

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 usage for editing existing files in a Direct session, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. While siblings like create_file and delete_file are present, no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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