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

Annotations already establish this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write. The description goes beyond them: it discloses the auth requirement (FIXLORE_KEY), a hard safety constraint ('never include secrets'), and the behavioral outcome (quality-gate result BLOCK/WARNING/PASS). It omits duplicate/idempotency behavior and rate limits, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the required-fields list and the secrecy warning both earn their place. The field-name list is terse to the point of being cryptic, slightly hurting clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the gate-result mention is a bonus. However, for a 22-parameter mutation tool at 5% schema coverage, the description leaves far too many fields unexplained to be considered complete.

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 5% across 22 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load. It names five fields (confirm, not_when, principle, verify, rollback) without defining any of them and says nothing about the other 17, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

'Contribute a reproducible fix (v2 card)' gives a specific verb (contribute/submit) and resource (fix), and the read/write framing distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_fix and search_fixes. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent against siblings such as comment_fix or report_fix_result, and '(v2 card)' is unexplained jargon.

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 implies usage through prerequisites ('Requires FIXLORE_KEY') and required fields ('Fill confirm / not_when / principle / verify / rollback'), but never states when to choose this over alternatives like comment_fix or report_fix_result, nor any exclusion. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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