Apply drift remediation

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations mark it as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description elaborates: 'file_bugs files a linked, drift-labeled bug per gap; reopen moves them back to Todo; relabel adds a drift label.' It also mentions dryRun for preview and that it records actions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that first summarize, then enumerate actions, and finally add additional options. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, destructive nature, and lack of output schema, the description covers the purpose, actions, verdicts, dryRun, and recording behavior. It does not specify the return value (though no output schema is present) or prerequisites, but it is largely complete for an actionable remediation tool.

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?

With only 40% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to the action parameter by detailing each enum value, explains verdicts (default ['drift']), and clarifies dryRun. However, the project parameter, which is required, receives no explanation. Overall, the description compensates for most schema gaps.

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's purpose: 'One-click remediation across a run's flagged tickets' and lists the specific actions (file_bugs, reopen, relabel). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like drift_report, which only reports without applying changes.

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 explains when to use the tool (when you have flagged tickets and want to apply remediation) and describes the actions and dryRun option. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like drift_report, which would provide clearer guidance.

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