Apply an explicit CSS wrap fix

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the dry-run default and the permission requirement for real writes. It also reinforces idempotency, which is already in the annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action; the second presents the critical default and guardrail. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the generated CSS rule looks like, how selector and profile interact, what a successful operation returns, or how this tool fits into the wrap-fix workflow. An agent would need external information to call it confidently.

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 0%, and the description only implicitly references dryRun via 'Dry-run is the default.' It does not explain the purpose or role of cssFile, selector, or profile, leaving the agent to infer how these parameters affect the appended CSS rule. The enum values for profile are not contextualized.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Append an idempotent CSS rule.' This differentiates the tool from obvious siblings like suggest_wrap_fix or inspect_wrap_css at a surface level by describing the action. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or elaborate on what a 'wrap fix' is, so the distinction is not fully reinforced.

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 provides useful context: dry-run is the default and real writes require allowWrites and an allowed root. This tells an agent when actual file modification can occur. But it does not say when to use this tool versus suggest_wrap_fix or verify_wrap_regression, and the mentioned allowWrites/root are not parameters in the schema, which could confuse.

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