diagnostics_safe_repair

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It does disclose an analyze-correlate-generate pipeline and dry-run support, which is useful, but it never clarifies whether the patch is automatically applied, what side effects may occur, or what 'verified' means operationally.

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 a single scannable sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, though the title-like prefix and compressed phrasing slightly reduce clarity.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits usage context, parameter mapping, return behavior, and side-effect expectations, so an agent lacks enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 the description only references dry-run support. The required parameters scriptPath, search, and replacement are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 names a specific action flow: analyze Studio errors, correlate with code, and generate a verified patch with dry-run support. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like debug_find_error, debug_propose_fix, or script_patch_source.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this repair-oriented tool is preferred over direct patch or debug tools.

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