record_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool closes the issue and requires evidence, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, what other side effects occur, or how it interacts with scoring or previous attempts.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence communicates the action and target, and the second adds an important usage constraint. Every word earns 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?

The description is adequate for a simple mutation tool: it says what it does and when to call it, and the schema and output schema cover the rest. It could add detail about finality or consequences, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it safely.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully documents the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Record the confirmed fix') and its consequence ('close the issue'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also differentiates the tool from siblings like record_attempt by emphasizing 'confirmed fix' and issue closure.

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 gives an explicit condition for use: 'Only call with evidence (test passed, error gone, or user confirmed).' It provides clear context for when the tool applies, though it does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it apart from the evidence requirement.

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