apply_quick_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It ambiguously states 'Apply a fix' and 'OUTPUT: Text edits' without clarifying whether it directly modifies files or only returns edits. It does not mention side effects, undo, or error handling.

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 succinct and well-structured: purpose, usage example, output, fix ID formats, and important note about zero-based lines. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'Text edits' but does not specify the structure or format. It covers prerequisites but misses post-conditions and error scenarios. Overall adequate but with gaps.

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 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., fixId='add_import:java.util.List') and documenting fix ID formats, which go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Apply a fix by ID' and provides specific fix ID formats (e.g., add_import, remove_import). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_quick_fixes which provide the fix IDs, making its purpose distinct.

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 includes a usage example and states the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It provides context on zero-based line numbers but does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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