fixEdits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Applies fix edits' implies a mutation or write operation but offers no details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the minimal action hint, leaving critical operational context unspecified.

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?

While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details and wastes its brevity on a tautology, failing to use its limited space to add meaningful value beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the complexity implied by a mutation tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'fix edits' are, what the tool returns, or any operational constraints, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 2 required parameters ('proposal' and 'source') with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter documentation exists in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they interact, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Applies fix edits' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'fixEdits' without clarifying what specific action is performed or what resource is involved. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings, leaving the purpose vague and minimally informative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'fixProposals', 'setObjectSource', and 'syntaxCheckCode', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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