apply_patch

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

The description openly discloses the file-system mutation types, including delete and move, and suggests a dry-run safety check. This complements the destructiveHint annotation with concrete operations, though it does not detail failure or atomicity behavior.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines scope and operations, the second provides a practical safety instruction. No fluff or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description plus structured fields provide everything needed to invoke properly: patch format, scope, supported operations, and a dry-run guardrail.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by naming the Codex patch format and giving a conditional usage rule for dry_run that is not in the schema. It does not add detail beyond schema for expected_sha256, but that is already well-documented.

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 specifies the exact action—applying a Codex patch—and the affected resources: files in the configured workspace, with explicit capabilities (add, update, move, delete). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling file tools like write_file/edit_file by patch format.

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?

It provides direct operational guidance to run with dry_run first when context lines are uncertain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer apply_patch over write_file/edit_file, but the patch-format reference supplies a reasonable context cue.

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