ssh_patch_file

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

The description discloses the read-replace-write mechanism and the uniqueness constraint. With no annotations, it carries the transparency burden adequately, though it omits error handling (e.g., file not found, multiple matches).

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 efficient: two sentences for the core action, an ulterior constraint, and a clear Args list. No superfluous content.

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?

Covers the main behavior and parameter semantics effectively. Lacks details on return values or error scenarios (e.g., if old not found), but for a patch tool this is acceptable.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description's Args section explains all four parameters: path, old (must be unique), new (replacement), and host (default if omitted), adding meaning 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 'Replace a string in a file on the remote server' and explains the read-locally-replace-write-back process, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_replace_lines and ssh_write_file.

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 specifies that the old string must appear exactly once to avoid ambiguous edits, providing a key constraint. It does not explicitly list alternatives but implies its unique placement requirement.

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