atl_fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses high-level behavior (code mods, config changes, DB migrations) but omits details on side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or error handling. The 'backup' parameter suggests some safety, but not explained.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It covers the core purpose and supported operations without waste. Could be structured with bullet points for clarity, but current form is efficient.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., which combinations are valid for each fixType), nor does it address input validation or expected behavior on failure.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. It groups fix types but does not clarify parameter grouping or conditional usage.

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 it performs automatic repair based on ATL learning results, listing supported repair types (code, config, database). While it distinguishes from browser-focused siblings, it does not explicitly differentiate from other fix tools like 'error_fix_suggestion' or 'browser_quick_fix'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided. The description is purely functional.

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