Record a fix outcome

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open world. The description adds that it creates and patches a fix_attempt, but does not elaborate on side effects, error handling, or interaction with external systems beyond annotation hints.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. 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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description covers the overall process but lacks details on return values, error states, or how idempotencyKey affects behavior. Some completeness gaps given 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% with each parameter having a description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond listing a subset of parameters; 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?

The description clearly states the tool records a fix outcome with specific fields (branch, PR, files, lines) from an external agent, and explains the process (creates a fix_attempt then patches it to completed). This distinguishes it from siblings like dispatch_fix or fix_suggest.

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 implies usage when an external agent has a fix result, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fix_suggest or merge_fix, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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