Remote Apply Patch

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important trait: edits are applied conditionally, gated on the expected revision hash and match counts (optimistic-concurrency / exact-match semantics). However, it omits what happens on mismatch (rejected or partial?), any permission requirements, and reversibility, so it falls short of full disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition, and the precondition is stated directly. It is efficient, though its brevity here signals under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

For a hash-guarded patch tool with a nested edit list, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is far too thin. An agent cannot learn the failure/mismatch behavior, the semantics of expected_count, or what a successful application returns.

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 there are four required parameters including a nested edits array, so the description should compensate. It only obliquely implies 'remote revision' maps to expected_sha256 and 'match counts' to expected_count, leaving project_id, relative_path, old_text/new_text untouched and no format or matching rules explained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('text edits') scoped to a remote target, which is enough to place it against the read-only siblings (remote_read, remote_stat, remote_list). It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with remote_upload/remote_download, but the patch-application purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The clause 'only when the remote revision and match counts agree' is a precondition, not usage direction, and it never explains when to choose this over remote_upload or remote_execute for changing remote content.

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