repair_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: a hard limit of two repairs including automatic grounding, rejection of assets changed outside the review, and an asynchronous 'wait for the returned review request' pattern. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, and what happens to prior repairs, keeping it below the top tier.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the constraints and workflow. No padding, though the awkward line breaks make the sequence slightly harder to parse than a single clean paragraph.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description covers the workflow and constraints but leaves parameters and return behavior unexplained. It is adequate on process, incomplete on inputs.

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% and none of the three required parameters (request_id, part, changes) are documented in the schema. The description alludes to a 'part repair' and 'changes' only obliquely and never explains the request_id or the shape of the nested changes object, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Apply a concrete part repair to a completed quality review') and ties the action to a completed review, which is more specific than the generic sibling names. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors like edit_prop_part or review_quality, so it stops short of the top tier.

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?

It gives a clear precondition (a completed quality review) and the follow-up flow ('then recapture and recheck', 'Wait for the returned review request, then inspect its fresh before/after images'). Constraints like the two-repair cap and rejection of externally changed assets further bound when it applies, though 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.