prumo_fix

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value by defining the bounded rewrite surface and the three classes of edits it refuses to make. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or failure modes, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety scope trailing. The first sentence is clause-dense and slightly hard to parse, but every clause carries information.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what gets changed, what never gets changed, and that it 'reports what remains.' The only meaningful gap is the absent relationship to prumo_check and any dry-run expectation.

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 'repo' and 'targets' (including the CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md/SKILL.md auto-detection behavior) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Rewrites case mismatches in place') and enumerates the exact defect classes it repairs (case mismatches, missing paths, markdown links, @ imports). An agent can tell it is the mutating counterpart to prumo_check, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It supplies clear when-not conditions: 'a link suggested from a name, a missing path with no history and a deleted file are never edited.' This scopes invocation precisely. It stops short of pointing at prumo_check as a dry-run/alternative, so it is context-rich but not a full when/when-not/alternatives triad.

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