mark_bug_fixed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It simply states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether the change is permanent, if it requires permissions, or what happens if the bug ID is invalid). It does not mention whether it is idempotent or what response to expect.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to parse.

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 simple tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits any note about return values, error handling, or the relationship to get_open_bugs/get_fixed_bugs. A more complete description would state the effect and expected outcome.

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 description mentions 'by bug ID' which maps directly to the single bugId parameter, providing context that the string refers to the bug's identifier. However, it does not explain the format, validation, or typical usage (e.g., obtaining the ID from a list of open bugs).

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 uses a specific action 'Mark a bug as fixed' with the resource 'bug' and identifies the key parameter (bug ID). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like fix_bugs (which actually fixes code) or get_open_bugs (which lists bugs).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fix_bugs or update_task_status. It does not mention prerequisites, whether the bug must exist, or whether this is the manual status update after running fix_bugs.

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