Apply Generated Fix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a write operation with safety checks (writes enabled, hash match, root path), implying it will not apply under other conditions. However, it does not explicitly state failure modes, reversibility, or what happens if checks fail.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and key conditions. It is concise with no unnecessary words.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but omits critical operational details like what fixId refers to, the expectedHash parameter's role, and potential return values. It is adequate as a starting point but not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 zero description coverage, and the description does not explain either parameter. It mentions 'file hash still matches' which loosely relates to expectedHash, but fixId is never explained. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter purpose and format.

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 applies a generated low-risk fix, using a specific verb ('applies') and resource ('generated fix'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like propose_fixes by indicating this is the execution step, not the proposal step.

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 explicitly provides conditions for use: 'only when writes are enabled, the file hash still matches, and the target path is under a configured root.' This gives clear guidance on when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it beyond these conditions.

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