bisect_good

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects (does marking good advance/terminate the session?), required session state, or errors on a non-existent version. Three of four sentences are Kiln Pro marketing, which is irrelevant to invocation.

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 single useful sentence is front-loaded, but it is followed by three lines of pricing/upgrade advertising that do not earn their place in a tool definition.

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 bisect-workflow mutation with two undocumented params, no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits session lifecycle, ordering relative to bisect_start/bisect_end, and outcome behavior. An agent could not reliably drive the workflow from this description.

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 compensate. It only hints that version_id is optional and defaults to the current candidate; session_id, the required parameter, is never explained, nor is the relationship between session and candidate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: mark a bisect candidate as known-good. It is clear what the tool does, but it never mentions the bisect session or distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as bisect_bad and bisect_current.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus bisect_bad/bisect_skip/bisect_end, nor any prerequisite that an active bisect session must exist. The only additional text is promotional upsell copy that carries no usage guidance.

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