write_fix_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses 'auto-rollback on failure' and 'optional tests', which are important side effects. However, it does not clarify what constitutes failure, whether changes are applied atomically, or what happens to the working tree on success.

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 a single sentence with two clauses, using no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core operation and key safety feature. This is an example of high-value conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a complex write operation. It lacks parameter semantics, prerequisites, and detailed behavior around test execution and rollback. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the five parameters (file_path, diff_str, repo_root, test_command, allowed_test_commands). The agent is left without any guidance on how to construct valid inputs.

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 action: 'Apply a unified diff to a file' with a specific resource and verb. It also mentions optional tests and auto-rollback, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_commit_tool or scan_repo_tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, or any exclusions. The only implicit context is that it modifies a file, but no explicit usage guidance is given.

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