fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: it writes to files and it re-checks after fixing. It still omits permissions needed, reversibility/rollback behavior, whether the re-check can fail the call, and idempotency, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the side effect immediately after, so nothing is padded. But the brevity here reads as under-specification rather than efficiency, since essential calling context is absent.

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 not be described, yet the definition still omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, and usage routing for a mutation tool that has no annotations to lean on. It is insufficient for an agent to call this confidently versus its siblings.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies a file target via 'Modifica archivos' but never explains 'path' semantics (file vs directory vs glob) or the 'timeout' parameter at all, leaving the schema's bare titles as the only guidance.

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 states a specific action ('Aplica las correcciones automáticas SEGURAS y vuelve a comprobar') and discloses the side effect ('Modifica archivos'), so the verb and resource are clear. However, 'fix' is generic and the description never contrasts itself with siblings like check, mutate, or gate, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 word 'SEGURAS' hints that only a safe subset of corrections is applied and implies some other operation handles unsafe ones, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative tool is named. Nothing tells the agent whether to run check/test/gate before or after this.

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