bisect_bad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this marks a candidate as known-bad and mentions a Kiln Pro entitlement, but does not explain session effects, reversibility, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens next.

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 action is front-loaded in one clear sentence, but the remaining three sentences are unrelated promotional copy about Free/Pro tiers, calibration, textures, and decorations. Most of the description does not help an agent select or invoke this tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It states the basic action but omits workflow context, side effects, return behavior, and the meaning of the required session_id.

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 both parameters. It partially clarifies that version_id is optional and defaults to the current candidate, but session_id is never explained and no format or constraint details are provided.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: marking a candidate as known-bad. It implicitly contrasts with bisect_good, though it does not name the sibling or explain the broader bisect workflow. The marketing sentences add noise but do not obscure the core purpose.

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 says the tool acts on the current or explicit candidate, but gives no guidance on when to use it versus bisect_good, bisect_skip, bisect_current, or bisect_end. It also omits prerequisites such as needing an active bisect session.

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