apply_quick_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the output ('Text edits') and zero-based line numbers, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error handling. The mutation nature is implied.

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 well-structured with a short summary, usage section, output, fix ID formats, important note, and prerequisite. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant sentences.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the basics: purpose, usage, fix IDs, line number convention, and prerequisite. However, it lacks details on error handling or success indicators.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by detailing fix ID formats, zero-based line numbers, and providing a usage example, which goes beyond the schema's parameter 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 examples of fix IDs, making the tool's purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_quick_fixes' by focusing on application rather than retrieval.

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, fix ID formats, and the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when not to use, but provides clear context for correct usage.

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