apply_staged_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that a human-reviewed patch is applied, but doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, or whether it requires any prerequisites. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 filler, front-loads the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

The tool has an output schema and low parameter count, but the description omits crucial context about the patch application workflow, such as whether it can be undone, how it relates to staged patches, or what the output means. Given the sibling tools suggest a review/apply pipeline, more context would be needed.

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 schema lists one optional parameter, instance_id, with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description provides no context for what instance_id means or how it should be used, leaving the agent to guess. Since the parameter name is relatively self-explanatory, it's not a 0, but the description adds no value.

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 uses the verb 'Apply' and identifies the resource as 'the patch that a human has reviewed in Blender,' clearly distinguishing it from staging or discarding operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with apply_scene_patch, a closely named sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'that a human has reviewed' implies the appropriate time is after human review, offering some guidance. But there are no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no mention of workflow steps like get_staged_patch or discard_staged_patch, and no exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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