Flag known bug

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

Annotations only indicate that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior that a flagged known bug always wins over auto-resolve regardless of evidence. This is valuable context that annotations cannot communicate. 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the single most important behavioral rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter write tool, the description covers the action and the essential override behavior, and the schema documents the parameters. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The only small gap is that when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 100%, and both parameters (repoPath and description) are already well documented in the schema. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Record a known bug') and immediately supplies the core differentiator: it overrides auto-resolve. This distinguishes it from sibling resolution/auto-resolve tools without needing to inspect the schema.

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 second sentence gives a clear behavioral context: use this when a known bug should supersede any auto-resolve conclusion, even when other evidence points elsewhere. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name sibling tools, but the precedence rule strongly implies the intended usage.

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