Apply verified patches to multiple files

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

Annotations provide minimal safety hints (non-read-only, non-destructive). Description adds important behavioral details: verification of each file/patch, backup creation, and rollback on failure, which go 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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key behavioral guarantees. No unnecessary 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?

Despite complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description omits details on patch format, sha256 usage, return value, and concurrency behavior. Incomplete for safe agent invocation.

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 only 33% (only 'project' has description). The description does not elaborate on 'edits' structure, 'patch' format, or 'expectedSha256' purpose. Parameters like 'concurrency' are left unexplained.

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 tool applies verified patches to multiple files with safety mechanisms (verification, backups, rollback). This distinguishes it from siblings like apply_patch (single file) and batch_read_files (read-only).

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 safe batch patching but does not explicitly state when to use versus single-file apply_patch or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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