deed_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool applies machine-applicable repairs, returns the repaired program, and defers uncertain suggestions to `deed_check`. This gives meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover potential side effects or error handling, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with actionable information. The first sentence states the main action and result; the second clarifies the boundary with `deed_check`. No filler or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential context: what it does, what it returns, and how it relates to the sibling tool for uncertain suggestions. Fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter `source` is fully described in the schema ('The whole text of one Deed module.'), with 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Apply every machine-applicable repair the compiler offers' and the resource (the repaired program). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `deed_check` by clarifying that uncertain suggestions appear there, not in `deed_fix`.

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?

Explicitly defines when to use this tool: to apply every repair the compiler would make without asking. It also provides a when-not case: suggestions the compiler is not sure about are left and surface in `deed_check`, serving as a clear alternative.

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