Report a bug on a ground

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the score rubric (0–8, defaults to 4), states urgency is intentionally excluded, explains solution overwrite semantics with project_events diff, status default, response auto-attached impact, empty radius meaning, and write-scope token requirement.

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 long but structured: it starts with the main purpose, then target, score, status, solution, and response behavior. Every sentence adds substantive detail, though the score rubric could have been condensed. Overall, the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers all necessary ground: target selection, score rubric, status default, solution handling, response impact details, and write-token requirement. It is fully self-contained for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description significantly enriches multiple parameters: it gives the full score rubric referenced by the schema, explains target.kind semantics beyond the enum, clarifies solution lifecycle, and confirms status default. This goes well beyond baseline schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Creates a new bug (issue eroding the target).' using a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_bug, delete_bug, and list_bugs. It also elaborates on the target.kind variants, reinforcing the resource type and scope.

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?

It provides explicit context on when to use different target kinds (node/api vs ground) and when to omit id. It also advises leaving solution empty rather than guessing and uses the impact response for QA scoping. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_bug or delete_bug, so it stops short of a full when-not/exclusion statement.

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