patch.skip_and_return_value

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, destructiveness, authorization needs, or the meaning of 'when supported'. For a patching tool, details like whether changes are reversible or what happens to the original instruction are omitted.

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 short (one sentence) but fails to convey essential information. Conciseness does not compensate for lack of clarity; the sentence is too brief to be helpful, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity of a patch tool (modifying binary code), the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions makes this description grossly incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, return values, or behavioral constraints, leaving an AI agent with no actionable information.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (value, address, session_id). For example, 'value' is ambiguous (the value to return? a condition?), and 'address' could be an integer or string without context. The description should clarify each parameter's role.

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 'Patch instruction to skip and return value when supported' is vague. It does not clearly specify what 'skip' means (e.g., skip execution of the instruction? skip to a different address?) nor differentiate from sibling patch tools like patch.convert_to_nop or patch.always_branch which also modify control flow.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description consists solely of a single vague sentence.

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