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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses side effects: 'reads local project files', 'writes .axint/repair and privacy-safe .axint/feedback artifacts', and even notes 'runs Cloud Check when source is provided', implying network activity. This exceeds the minimal disclosure expected.

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 structured into useful segments ('Use:', 'Inputs:', 'Effects:') and front-loads the main purpose. However, it repeats the artifact-writing detail ('writes .axint/repair plus a privacy-safe .axint/feedback packet' and later 'Effects: writes .axint/repair and privacy-safe .axint/feedback artifacts'), costing a small amount of economy.

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?

Despite having 17 parameters, the schema and output schema cover the detailed semantics. The description provides the high-level workflow (index, classify, Cloud Check, rank, return plan, write artifacts) and contextual notes (privacy-safe feedback, reads local files), making it complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'describe the observed bug and attach logs or evidence', 'modifiedFiles and project index narrow the plan'), but it uses the term 'modifiedFiles' while the schema defines 'changedFiles', creating potential confusion. It doesn't meaningfully compensate beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 verb ('Plan'), the resource ('a project-aware Apple repair for existing apps'), and specific actions (indexes, classifies, runs Cloud Check, ranks files, returns plan, writes artifacts). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'not for greenfield generation', separating it from scaffold or feature tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use: use for existing app bugs with logs, UI symptoms, or runtime evidence; not for greenfield generation.' This is a clear when/when-not directive, and the mention of 'modifiedFiles and project index narrow the plan' indicates how to refine usage for better results.

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