Merge fix PR

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds crucial context: irreversible from Mushi's side (no unmerge endpoint, only manual revert PR), safe no-op if already merged, and preconditions like CI green. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with main action, then behavioral notes and usage guidelines. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Output schema provided, return value mentioned in description. Annotations cover safety traits. Prerequisites and alternatives are given. Sibling tools are referenced. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% and both parameters (fixId, mergeMethod) are well-described in schema. Description does not add significant new info beyond the purpose mentioning 'squash-merge' (default method). Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool squash-merges a GitHub PR for a fix attempt, marks the report fixed, and notifies the reporter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transition_status (change state without merging) and dispatch_fix (opens a 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 states when to use: 'Use to ship a fix opened by dispatch_fix; use transition_status to change state without merging.' Also provides prerequisites: CI must be green, and user should confirm diff and CI before calling on unreviewed PRs.

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