apply_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states that a backup is created before changes, that resetWorld is optional, and that this approach is safer than deleting jars. It does not disclose return values or how crash-culprit mods are determined, but the core safety-relevant behavior is clearly communicated.

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 action and precondition are front-loaded, and the preference instruction is separated for emphasis. Every clause contributes decision-relevant information.

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 sufficient for selecting the tool and understanding its high-level behavior: backup, disable culprit mods, optionally reset. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe what the tool returns, what 'crash-culprit' detection depends on, or the exact consequences of resetWorld, leaving some post-invocation behavior to inference.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the missing resetWorld semantics with 'Optionally reset the world.' It also reinforces that crash-culprit disabling is the main operation and that addonIds are extra, which helps agents understand which arguments are required versus supplemental.

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 identifies a specific action (disable crash-culprit mods), a specific resource (world profile), and a key precondition (after backup). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_world_mods or reset_world because it targets crash-culprit mods and explicitly mentions backup. The 'Always prefer this over deleting jars' line further narrows its role.

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 clear context: use it to fix crashes by disabling culprit mods, after backup, and prefer it over deleting jar files. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against related sibling tools such as reset_world or set_world_mods, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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