apply_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool operates in 'real' mode, that backup and validate default to true, and that dryRun is supported. These are useful behavioral traits beyond the name, though it does not describe error handling or exact consequences of applying the fix.

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 extremely concise, with three short sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide key behavioral details. No wasted words, and the structure is logical: purpose first, then defaults and mode.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, requiring the description to cover usage, parameters, and expected outcomes. The description is too brief, omitting explicit alternatives, parameter details, and any information about return values or side effects, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions defaults for backup and validate and the existence of dryRun. It does not explain the meaning or valid values for fixId, backup, validate, or dryRun, leaving parameter semantics largely undefined.

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: 'Apply a confirmed fix.' It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('fix'), and the context of 'confirmed' distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_fix, suggest_fixes, and rollback_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?

The description implies usage after a fix is confirmed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions dryRun support but does not say when to use dryRun or when to prefer other tools, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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