apply_reasoned_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that edits are literal find/replace, reviewable, and recorded in the fix log, and it explicitly enumerates refusal conditions (removing output requests or deleting most of the deck). This goes beyond a basic description and gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations. It does not mention error outcomes or asynchronous behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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-organized: a summary sentence, a behavioral note on edit semantics and refusals, and a parameter list. It is somewhat verbose but appropriately detailed for a complex tool. There is minor redundancy (e.g., 're-run it' and 'on the re-run' in max_iters), but overall structure supports clarity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, constraints, and logging, and an output schema exists so return details are not needed. It adequately states the context ('parked design') and the refusal rules. Missing are potential adherence to before calling (e.g., whether the design must be parked) and whether the operation is synchronous, but these are likely implied by the absence of references to job creation. Overall, the essentials are present.

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%, so the description's 'Args' section is the only source of parameter semantics. It explains all six arguments, including the format of edits_json (JSON list of find/replace pairs), the role of rationale (recorded), max_iters (deterministic fix iterations), and cpus (solver CPUs). This fully compensates for the absent 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 the action ('apply a reasoned deck edit') and the target ('a parked design'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing the 'reasoned' nature and the re-run behavior. It also explains the literal find/replace mechanism and the fix log, which separates it from automated correction tools like autocorrect_simulation.

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 clear context: it is for repairing parked designs with reasoned edits, and it explicitly states what edits are refused. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings, particularly autocorrect_simulation, nor does it offer exclusions or named alternatives. The 'reasoned' qualifier implies a contrast but is not made explicit.

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