Assemble and patch instructions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a mutation ('Patch') but says nothing about whether changes persist, whether the database must be saved, whether existing analysis is invalidated (e.g., force_recompile), or whether operations are reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than showing restraint with genuinely necessary content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and half-documented parameters the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, persistence behavior, and how the multi-item patch list is applied.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate but adds nothing about parameters. In particular, the anyOf shape of 'items' (single object or array of objects) and the current-target semantics of instance_id are not clarified beyond the schema's terse notes.

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 and resource: 'Patch assembly instructions at addresses'. An agent can understand what the tool does, but the description offers no differentiation from the sibling 'patch' tool, which is presumably the byte-level equivalent. The title 'Assemble and patch instructions' adds the assemble step, but the body text does not carry that distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'patch', nor any mention of prerequisites such as an open database or the role of instance_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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