Submit a 3–6 line Russian summary of what was wrong, what you changed, and whether it helped; the app removes personal data and sends it to the developer.
Finish a repair round: 3–6 lines in Russian on what was wrong, what you did and whether it helped. The app removes personal data and sends it to the developer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fixed | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important behavioral trait: personal data is stripped and the text is sent to the developer, i.e. this transmits data outside the session. It does not say whether the submission is one-shot/irreversible or what happens to a report after it is sent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the format constraint, and the second sentence earns its place by disclosing the privacy/data-handling behavior. No filler.
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?
For a two-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers format, language, and data handling, but leaves the 'fixed' parameter and any post-submission effect (confirmation, retry behavior) unaddressed.
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 must compensate. It does specify the summary format well (3–6 lines, Russian, must cover what was wrong, what was done, and whether it helped), but the required 'fixed' boolean is never explained — the agent cannot tell whether it means 'the problem is resolved' or 'a change was applied'.
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 states a specific verb+resource: it finishes a repair round by submitting a 3–6 line report on the problem, the action taken, and the outcome. This is clearly distinct from the sibling 'repair' tool, though the distinction is only implied via 'finish' rather than stated explicitly.
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?
'Finish a repair round' implies this is called at the end of a repair cycle, which gives usable context. However, it never explicitly says to call 'repair' first, nor what to do if a round is abandoned, and no alternative tool is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.