edb_patch_history

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which contradict each other since clearing history is destructive. The description mentions 'clear the history' but does not clarify the discrepancy or add details beyond annotations, such as side effects or authorization needs.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with two modes and an output schema, the description minimally covers the functionality but lacks details on side effects of clearing, whether history persists across sessions, or what the 'show' output looks like.

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 only parameter, 'clear', is described in the input schema but the description does not add any extra semantic meaning. With schema description coverage at 0% (despite the schema having a brief description), the description fails to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 shows or clears memory patches from the session. The verb 'show' and 'clear' combined with 'memory patches' and 'history' precisely define the resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings like edb_apply_patches_to_file or edb_nop_range.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as edb_apply_patches_to_file or viewing patches via other means. It lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use, or typical workflows.

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