suggest_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the output form ('diff-style suggestion') and implies a non-destructive, advisory operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify files, mention prerequisites, or describe potential side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, front-loads the exact purpose, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and returns.

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 suggestion-generation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function, required inputs, and return type. It lacks detail on the exact structure of the diff and any dependencies on prior scans, but it is sufficient for an agent 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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description only echoes 'rule ID + file' and adds 'metadata or code fix' as the type of fix, providing minimal additional meaning 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 verb ('generate') and resource ('suggested metadata or code fix') for a specific input ('Agentforce violation (rule ID + file)'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explain_violation and scan_agentforce by focusing on fix generation rather than scanning or explaining.

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 phrase 'Given a specific Agentforce violation (rule ID + file)' clearly indicates when to use the tool: after a violation has been identified and a rule ID and file path are known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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