fixEdits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Applies fix edits' is extremely vague—it does not indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this lack of detail is inadequate and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the tool's action, though this comes at the cost of being overly vague. In terms of structure and brevity, it meets the criteria for conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity implied by two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect as a result. This lack of information makes it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or understand its role among many sibling tools.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the parameters 'proposal' and 'source'. The description 'Applies fix edits' adds no meaningful information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they interact. This leaves both parameters entirely undocumented, which is insufficient for a tool with two required inputs.

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 'Applies fix edits' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fixEdits' without providing meaningful clarification. It mentions a verb ('applies') and a resource ('fix edits'), but 'fix edits' is vague and doesn't specify what is being fixed or edited. Compared to sibling tools like 'fixProposals' or 'renameExecute', this lacks differentiation and specificity about the actual operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it does not reference any sibling tools (e.g., 'fixProposals' or 'syntaxCheckCode') that might be related. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed decision about tool selection.

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