coherra_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does so clearly: each action states whether it archives, refreshes, or writes a new canonical entity, and phrases like 'forget the entity' convey destructiveness. It also documents the return tuple. Minor gaps remain around irreversibility and permissions, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Actions by severity, Args, Returns) and front-loads the purpose sentence. The action list is necessary detail rather than filler. It is somewhat long, but every section 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 three-parameter mutation tool, the description covers input provenance, action semantics, conditional value requirements, and return shape. The primary gap is the lack of guidance for choosing this tool over coherra_repair_safe, but an agent has enough detail to invoke it correctly for a given audit issue.

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 schema is effectively bare (0% description coverage), so the description compensates completely: issue_id is detailed as a 10-char hex id from the audit list, action is mapped to severity-specific allowed values, and value is conditionally required for contradiction/merge_manual. This is exemplary beyond-schema parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply one repair to a flagged issue from the last audit.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the read/list/audit siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling coherra_repair_safe, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: it specifies that issue_id comes from the coherra_audit issues_found list and enumerates allowed actions by severity. However, it does not state when to use coherra_repair over coherra_repair_safe, nor give any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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