oc_patch

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool patches resources, implying modification, but does not disclose that it mutates existing resources, may require specific permissions, can be dangerous with force, or that dryRun is available. Deeper behavioral context is absent.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose. It contains no redundant words and efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to give a complete picture. It lacks information about return values, side effects, error scenarios, or practical examples, leaving the agent to infer most behavioral context from the schema alone.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little value by explicitly naming the three patch types, which maps to the patchType parameter, but it does not add syntax or usage details beyond what the schema already documents.

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's action ('Patch') and resource scope ('OpenShift resources'), and names the three patch operation types (strategic merge, JSON merge, JSON patch). It is specific enough to distinguish from create/delete/scale, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like oc_apply, which also modifies resources.

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 oc_apply, oc_create, or oc_scale. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose a specific patch type.

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