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

Exceeds the annotations by disclosing the FIXLORE_KEY/write-scope auth requirement and the data-handling policy ('send no secrets; evidence strings are redacted'). The idempotentHint and non-destructive profile come from annotations, and the revision-mismatch refusal is stated in the schema rather than the description.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by timing, prerequisites, and a safety caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no explanation, and the description covers purpose, timing, auth, and redaction for a 12-param write tool. The one real gap is disambiguation from the similarly named report_outcome sibling.

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?

With 12 parameters at 50% schema coverage, the schema does only half the work. The description reinforces fix_revision's binding semantics and constrains the evidence field ('no secrets'), but says nothing about note, outcome values, environment, or the other undocumented params; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Report whether a fix worked') and adds a distinctive binding constraint ('bound to the exact revision you read'). However, it never disambiguates from the sibling report_outcome, which by name covers similar ground.

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?

'Always call after trying one' gives explicit timing guidance, and the write-scope prerequisite is stated. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative to route the agent to versus report_outcome or comment_fix.

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