Repair project JSON

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: conservative fixes, explanation of changes, and leaving missing media URLs as errors. This goes beyond the input schema and helps the agent understand behavior.

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 covering purpose, scope, and return value. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (repaired payload plus validation result) and the types of fixes. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient, though specific error format could be elaborated.

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 single parameter 'payload' is described in the schema as 'The (possibly invalid) project JSON to repair'. The description adds context about autofixes and return format, adding value beyond the schema's coverage.

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 action: 'Attempt conservative auto-fixes on an invalid project payload' and lists specific fix types. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_project_json by focusing on repair rather than validation.

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 usage after validation fails by mentioning 'invalid project payload' and listing auto-fixes. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using or name alternatives, but the context from sibling tools suggests appropriate use.

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