guard_apply_patch

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

Annotations already cover read-only=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the description's added value is the security model: secrets stay in local volatile RAM and never reach the remote LLM. It does not disclose overwrite behavior when the target file exists, which matters given destructiveHint=false while the schema allows 'create or update' and a default .bak backup.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the operation and then the security rationale; every clause carries information. The 'Zero-Trust Agentic Guard' prefix is branding rather than instruction and is the one part that does not earn its place.

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 write behavior and secrecy guarantee are clear, but with no output schema the description never says what is returned (success status, masked path, count of restored tokens) or what happens if content has no matching placeholders or the session has no token registry. For a mutating disk-write tool those gaps are material.

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%, so all four parameters are documented, including the session_id isolation default and create_backup default. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb chain (reverses placeholders, restores values, writes to disk) and a concrete resource (target file), so there is no ambiguity about what the tool produces. Differentiation from siblings is only implicit: 'writes real content directly to target file' contrasts with reveal_text/guard_unmask_args, but no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is implied by 'AI-generated code or text' containing token placeholders, which tells the agent this is the write-side step after generation. There is no explicit when-to-use versus reveal_text, guard_unmask_args, or sanitize_file, and no when-not guidance (e.g., a file with no placeholders).

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