edb_stack_modify

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

The description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations: it writes a new value to the stack pointer location without altering RSP. This complements the destructiveHint while clarifying the non-destructive effect on RSP. It is consistent with annotations.

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 and well-structured: four sentences covering core function, menu equivalence, high-level action, and parameter/return details. Every sentence earns its place without 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 one-parameter tool, the description covers essential aspects: function, behavioral trait (no RSP change), parameter, and return type. However, it lacks example usage or error scenarios, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 description includes an Args section that repeats the parameter information already present in the schema (e.g., value string with example). Since the schema already clearly describes the parameter, the description adds no new meaning, so a baseline score 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 modifies the top-of-stack value without changing RSP, using a specific verb and resource. It also references the EDB menu equivalent, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_stack_pop that alter RSP.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_stack_pop or edb_stack_push. The description implies its purpose but does not provide context for when it is appropriate or preferable.

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