apply_html_patch

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions normalization, regex, and anchors but fails to explicitly state that the tool modifies files, what happens on failure, or the need for write permissions. Essential behavioral context is missing.

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 at one line, including an emoji for attention. It front-loads the key features. While it could benefit from additional structure or bullet points, it contains no unnecessary words and is efficient.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple strategies) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, how strategies interact, or the project context (Apps Script). Critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the patch request strategies (normalization, regex, anchor positions), but it does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The high-level context is useful but not essential.

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 identifies the tool as an HTML-specific patching system with features like normalization, regex, and anchors. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling patch tools like apply_code_patch or apply_enhanced_patch, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool over alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other patch tools (e.g., apply_code_patch, apply_anchor_patch). The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, conflicting tools, or preferred use cases, making it difficult for an AI agent to choose appropriately.

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