Apply Multi-file Patch

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by specifying atomicity and rollback journal, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff. Front-loaded with the key action and distinctive features (atomically, rollback journal).

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?

Lacks prerequisites (e.g., patchset must be validated), workflow context, and details about rollback journal. Given no output schema, more context is needed for an agent to understand side effects.

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 single parameter patchsetId has no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain its purpose or how to obtain it, relying solely on the parameter name.

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 it applies validated files atomically with a rollback journal. The verb 'apply' and resource 'validated files' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like patchset.propose or patchset.validate beyond the 'validated' qualifier.

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 vs alternatives. The mention of 'validated files' implies prior validation, but there is no statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools like patch.apply.

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