Patch IDB bytes

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags that this is a mutating operation, so the description does not need to carry that burden. The description adds that it writes hex data to memory addresses, but it does not disclose whether changes are reversible, whether they persist in the IDB, or any permission requirements beyond what annotations already imply.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the core action and data format.

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 the existence of an output schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description need not explain return values or the general mutation risk. However, it omits relevant context such as how multiple patches are supplied and how this differs from patch_asm, leaving the agent to rely on schema inference for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 50%: the nested addr and data fields are well described in the schema, while the top-level patches parameter has an empty description. The description adds some meaning by mentioning "hex data" and "memory addresses," but it does not compensate fully for the undocumented patches structure or the optional instance_id default.

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 verb ("Patch") and resource ("bytes at memory addresses") with the required data format ("hex data"). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish raw-byte patching from the sibling tool patch_asm, which likely patches assembly instructions.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_asm or put_int, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. At best the verb "Patch" implies a use case, but no real guidance is provided.

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