generate_patch

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It adds that it does not edit the repository, which is useful safety information. However, it doesn't explain what 'validated' means, whether tests are run, or what the output looks like.

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 with no filler, which is efficient and front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the core purpose and a key safety property, but it is brief and does not elaborate on structure or use cases.

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 has 6 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain any parameters, the meaning of 'validated', or what the agent will receive. The sibling tools suggest a complex workflow, but this description lacks the necessary context.

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 provides no parameter information. The agent cannot understand the meaning or formatting of 'task', 'file_context', 'allowed_paths', or other parameters from the description alone.

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 generates a validated candidate unified diff and explicitly notes it does not edit the repository. This distinguishes it from editing tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like review_patch or submit_patch_job.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions. The only hint is that it is non-editing, but no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison to siblings.

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