Dispatch Mushi fix agent

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate this is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds the behavior of returning a 'fix_attempt id' and the polling procedure, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not clarify what side effects occur (e.g., PR creation) or whether the tool is safe to retry without idempotency key.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence adds a concrete example and guidance. It could be slightly more concise by avoiding the redundant 'Set agent="cursor_cloud"' if that value isn't valid, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool has 4 parameters, 1 required, with full schema coverage and a known output schema. The description mentions the return value and polling step, meeting baseline needs. However, it fails to cover the contradiction in the agent parameter value or explain when to use optional parameters like 'inventoryActionNodeId', leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description mentions setting 'agent="cursor_cloud"', but this value is not in the schema enum ('claude_code', 'codex', 'rest_worker', 'mcp'), creating a contradiction that misleads the agent. The description does not explain the other parameters (idempotencyKey, inventoryActionNodeId) beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Dispatch the Mushi agentic fix orchestrator for a classified report' with a specific verb ('Dispatch') and resource ('fix orchestrator'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fix_suggest' by focusing on dispatching an agent, and mentions a concrete example with 'agent="cursor_cloud"'.

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 an explicit use case ('Set agent="cursor_cloud" to dispatch a Cursor Cloud Agent that opens a signed draft PR') and instructs to poll 'get_fix_timeline' for progress. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fix_suggest' or 'merge_fix', offering no exclusions.

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