fix_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the execution model (worker calls run in parallel, writes run in series), and that each symbol is re-resolved by name before its write so earlier patches shifting offsets is not a problem. It does not describe failure/partial-write behavior or whether patches can be reverted, which the sibling revert_patch/revert_session imply is possible.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the routing rule, and the concurrency/ordering sentence is genuinely informative. The line 'This is the tool this server exists for' is promotional filler that does not earn its place.

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?

For a 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers execution ordering, concurrency, override semantics, and offset safety. It stops short of covering partial-failure or recovery behavior, which an agent running a bulk write would want.

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 100%, so the required baseline is 3. The prose adds conceptual framing ('a transformation stated once and applied to symbols you never read') but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents for targets, instruction, and max_parallel.

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+resource ('Apply ONE instruction across MANY symbols') and explicitly names the sibling it is not for: 'For a single target, use fix_symbol instead.' An agent can route between fix_symbols and fix_symbol without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use threshold ('the parallel worker calls here only pay off once there is more than one') and names the alternative tool for the single-target case. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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