ddflow_bug_fixed

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the unusual regression-test requirement and the fail-first workflow. However, it does not state side effects, such as whether the bug becomes permanently closed, whether lesson fields trigger lesson creation, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the critical requirement stated immediately. The em-dash workflow adds necessary context without wasting words.

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 a basic close with id and regression_test, but it ignores the optional lesson-capture parameters entirely and provides no output or side-effect information. For a mutation tool in a large sibling family, an agent could still call it correctly, but would not understand when to attach lesson data.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds some meaning around regression_test ('catch it again') but does not add value for id, lesson, lesson_rule, or lesson_title. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a clear action ('Close a bug') on a specific resource, distinguishing it from the sibling ddflow_bug_found at least implicitly. It does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast behaviors, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use: closing requires a regression test, and it explains the expected workflow (write test, watch it fail, then close). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisite is concrete and actionable.

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