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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the three actions but does not mention side effects, persistence, required permissions, return format, or what 'register' actually does to the system. The mutation nature is only implied by the word 'Register.'

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?

The description is concise—two sentences with no filler—and leads with the core purpose 'Register a fix,' making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains only the action parameter and omits details about other required parameters, return values, or operational behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to the 'action' parameter by explaining its enum values. However, it does not address other parameters like library, symbol, env, or error, leaving most of the 9 parameters unexplained.

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 opens with 'Register a fix,' a clear verb+resource combination, and then enumerates three distinct actions with their meanings. This makes the tool's purpose explicit and differentiates it from sibling read-only tools like list_methods and query.

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 explicit context for when to use each action: 'confirm (it worked)', 'append_thread (variant worked)', 'new_receipt (nothing matched, I fixed it)'. This is clear action-level guidance, though it does not directly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use the tool overall.

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