Validate Patch

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds 'All state from server' hinting at server-side checks. However, it does not detail what validation does (e.g., conflict detection, side effects) beyond the annotation context.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds necessary information.

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?

Despite low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description omits what validation returns (pass/fail, details). Without output schema, the agent lacks clues about what the tool outputs, reducing completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the source of patchId ('from patch.propose'), which helps the agent understand parameter origin. More detail on format or constraints would push higher.

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 states a specific action 'Validate proposed patch' with a clear verb and resource. Among siblings like patch.propose and patch.apply, it is distinct as a validation step.

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 specifies a prerequisite ('Requires patchId from patch.propose'), providing sequential context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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