Report Fix Outcome

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

The annotation has idempotentHint=true, and the description advises calling once, which is consistent. The description adds behavioral context about the feedback loop ('failed-fix follow-ups directly improve future answers') and the memory effect for rank-1 fixes, going beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information, and efficient. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers what, when, how, why, and references the sibling tool. It lacks the return value description, but there is no output schema. Given the tool's simplicity, the context is largely 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter details beyond schema, only contextualizes usage (e.g., 'passing the debug_log_id from that response'). No additional semantic depth.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report whether a DebugAI fix actually worked'. It specifies the verb 'report' and resource 'fix outcome', and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'debug_error' by indicating it is a follow-up after applying a fix.

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?

Explicit instructions: 'Call this ONCE after applying (or abandoning) a fix from debug_error'. Provides context for when to use (post-fix) and why (to improve future answers and team memory). No ambiguity.

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