prumo_fix

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: it edits 'in place', reports what remains, and explicitly delimits what it will never touch (suggested links, missing paths without history, deleted files). This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the exclusion list is packed into a clear second sentence. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key action, its scope, and the fact that results are reported. It does not elaborate on the exact format of the report, but the 'reports what remains' phrase gives sufficient expectation for an agent without an output schema.

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 baseline applies. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it focuses on tool behavior. With both 'repo' and 'targets' already well-documented in the schema, no additional semantic guidance is needed.

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 a specific verb ('rewrites') and resource (case mismatches in git index spelling, missing paths/links to renamed files), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing exactly what it fixes. The boundary statement 'Nothing else is touched' further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 when to use the tool—when case mismatches or renamed-file paths need fixing—but does not explicitly name alternatives like prumo_check or prumo_drift. It does provide strong when-not guidance by listing cases that are never edited, which helps an agent avoid misuse.

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