project_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the main actions—anchoring, cleaning, resolving references—and 'cleans' hints at removal, but it does not warn about irreversibility, deletion consequences, or lack of confirmation for a potentially destructive automated operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains a high-level intent marker, the action verb, and parenthesized examples. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

The description is sufficient to attempt a repair with default parameters, but with no output schema it does not state what the tool returns or how success/failure is signaled, and it leaves 'common place issues' vague. For an automated mutating tool, a little more context would be needed for fully confident use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so both params (fixPhysics, cleanOrphans) are already self-explanatory. The tool description adds high-level context but no further parameter syntax, defaults, or interaction details beyond the schema.

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 action ('Automatically repairs') and names concrete issue types: anchoring loose parts, cleaning orphan instances, and resolving broken references. It is clearly about corrective maintenance of a place, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling repair/analyze tools like diagnostics_safe_repair or project_health.

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 implies the tool is for fixing common place issues but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent is not told to run project_analyze first or to prefer diagnostics_safe_repair in other scenarios.

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