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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real side effect: three consecutive NACKs quarantine the patch. It omits whether an ACK resets that counter, whether reporting is idempotent or terminal, and what happens with an unrecognized fingerprint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the enum semantics, with the quarantine consequence stated immediately after. No filler.

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?

Adequate for a mutation tool with no output schema: the outcome semantics and the quarantine rule are covered. Missing are the reset/terminal behavior of ACK, error handling for unknown fingerprints, and any indication of what the call returns or requires for authorization.

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%: fingerprint and submitted_by are documented in the schema, and the description usefully explains the ACK/NACK enum values beyond the bare enum. The 'notes' parameter is undocumented in both places and the description says nothing about what it should contain.

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 (report) and resource (patch outcome) and defines both enum values, so an agent knows exactly what is being recorded. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fmagenticl_resolve or fmagenticl_auto_heal, which also sound like remediation-closing actions.

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 ACK/NACK definitions imply when each outcome applies (patch resolved the failure vs failed/stale), which is useful. However, there is no guidance on prerequisites (must a patch have been submitted first?), no mention of when to prefer fmagenticl_resolve, and no exclusions.

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