Report a Pickfix batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that reporting is mandatory on completion and that the reviewer consumes the summary in the extension, but it omits the mutation semantics (finalizing/closing the batch), whether repeated calls overwrite prior reports, and any auth or idempotency behavior.

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 tight sentences with the action and its completion trigger front-loaded; nothing is redundant with the schema and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a five-parameter reporting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing piece: when to invoke it and that the summary is user-visible. It stops short of explaining batch-state effects or how changedFiles relates to per-item outcomes.

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 enum meanings for outcome, the 300-char item notes, and the 600-char summary are already documented. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or how items/changedFiles should be populated, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report the outcome of a batch you claimed'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling read/claim tools. It does not name a sibling directly, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

'Always call this when you finish, including when you could only partly fix it or not at all' gives an explicit, even mandatory, trigger condition covering the partial and failure cases. It lacks an explicit 'do not call before claiming' exclusion, but the phrase 'a batch you claimed' implies the prerequisite.

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