fixEdits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'applies', which implies a mutation, but does not disclose what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, what inputs are required for a successful application, or what the tool returns. This is severely lacking for a likely mutating operation.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information that should be present, making it an incomplete specification rather than a well-structured concise description.

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 tool's likely role in the ADT workflow (sibling fixProposals implies it applies generated fixes), the description is far too sparse. It lacks any details about required inputs, expected behavior, or how it fits with related tools. The absence of annotations and output schema makes this description completely inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'source' and 'proposal'. It does not explain what these strings represent, their format, or how they relate to each other. The description fails to compensate for the missing 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' essentially restates the tool name 'fixEdits' with no additional specificity. It does not explain what fix edits are, what resource they are applied to, or how this relates to sibling tools like fixProposals. The verb and noun are present but lack contextual meaning.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a proposal from fixProposals), no context about typical workflows, and no exclusion criteria. The description is entirely silent on usage scenarios.

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