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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it states determinism, discloses that the return value includes repaired code plus a list of corrections, and explains how unrepaired errors are handled. Minor unspecified traits like whether input is mutated are not addressed, but the core behavioral contract is transparent.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The action and supported error types are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful behavioral constraints without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned and how edge cases (unrepairable errors) are handled. The only required parameter is documented in the schema, so an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is acceptable but not above the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('repair') and identifies the exact resource ('FlowZap Code errors'), then enumerates the concrete error categories it handles. The list makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like flowzap_validate and flowzap_apply_change.

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 intended use case is clear: this tool is for mechanical, deterministic repairs of FlowZap Code errors. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the deterministic scope and the 'never invents content' constraint provide clear routing context.

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