apex_fix_permissions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering mutation safety and repeatability. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the types of issues addressed (grants, synonyms) and the 'auto-fix' nature. While it doesn't disclose every side effect, it aligns with annotations and contributes useful detail beyond them.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It uses a clear verb 'Auto-fix' and parenthetical examples for specificity. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and examples of issues. However, it could briefly mention when to run it (e.g., after apex_check_permissions) or what the output indicates, but these gaps are minor for a zero-configuration tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it doesn't attempt to add any parameter-related information.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Auto-fix common Oracle permission issues (grants, synonyms).' The verb 'fix' identifies the action, the resource 'permissions' defines the scope, and examples (grants, synonyms) add specificity. It also distinguishes itself from sibling apex_check_permissions by implying a corrective role.

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 use when permission issues exist, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apex_check_permissions. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it complements the check tool. Usage context is only implicit.

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