edb_nop_range

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of replacing bytes adds little new behavioral context. No contradictions, but no significant additional disclosure beyond the annotation.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage tip, parameter format, and return type. No fluff.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover destructiveness, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how to use it, and what it returns. However, it could mention that it modifies the program instructions in memory.

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?

The input schema descriptions fully cover the two parameters (start and end address). The description repeats this with examples, adding marginal value. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 replaces a range of instructions with NOP bytes and identifies it as the primary method for patching out conditional jumps or calls. This distinguishes it from siblings like edb_fill_memory or edb_write_memory, and includes a concrete use case.

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 advises using edb_get_function_bounds to find the range, but does not specify when not to use this tool or list alternative methods for similar tasks. The guidance is minimal.

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