graph_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose useful behavior: expansion into an atomic ChangeSet, preservation of omitted fields, and optional atomic Block checkpoint creation. However, it omits any direct mention of mutation scope, destructiveness, permissions, or failure behavior, so transparency is adequate but not complete.

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 two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every clause adds a distinct and useful fact: patch format, atomic ChangeSet equivalence, partial-update behavior, and checkpoint capability.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse for confident invocation beyond the required patch. It explains the patch concept well but does not cover the remaining parameters, return values, or failure modes, leaving an agent with significant uncertainty for valid optional usage.

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 the description only clarifies the required patch format (mdflow/1 Markdown-like). The other nine parameters—task, actor, planId, reason, gitHead, projectRoot, chainScopeId, taskContextId, and includeStructured—are left entirely unexplained, and checkpoint=auto is mentioned even though it is not present in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a compact mdflow/1 Markdown-like patch.' It also distinguishes graph_patch from the sibling graph_mutate by noting it expands into the same atomic ChangeSet, so an agent can tell the tools apart without inspecting their schemas.

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 clearly frames this tool as the compact Markdown-patch variant of graph_mutate and mentions the atomic ChangeSet equivalence, giving an agent a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or say 'use graph_mutate instead when...', so it stops short of a 5.

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