art.style.repair

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool only generates a plan and identifies actions, which is helpful for a tool named 'repair' that could be mistaken for an executable repair. It is not explicit about whether it mutates any state or requires stored check results from a previous call.

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 one clean sentence with a front-loaded verb and object. The apposition after the dash provides extra context about the plan's contents without wasting words. Every part of the message earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate to understand the basics: generate a repair plan from a style check. However, it does not mention how the plan is expressed (e.g., a list vs. a Newton-style or according to a schema), nor does it give procedural context such as when the repair plan should be invoked or how it relates to later plan/execute steps.

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 covers both parameters fully: session_id is described as 'Canvas session ID', and material is described as 'Material type for context-specific repairs'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters.

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 concrete verb ('generate'), a specific deliverable ('repair plan'), and an explicit source ('style consistency check'). It clearly states the tool's purpose is to produce actions that fix style issues on a canvas, making it distinct from the many style check, compile, and provisioning siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'from a style consistency check' implies a link to a prior check, but it never says 'use after art.style.check' or 'this only produces a plan, not an execution'. The agent must infer the intended workflow.

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