repair_calculated_field_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals that this is a mutating operation gated behind a preview/apply distinction, implying a safe non-destructive default, but it does not state what is destroyed on apply, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is perhaps too terse given the breadth of undocumented behavior.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and four undocumented parameters the description is too thin. It omits what issue types can be repaired, prerequisites (e.g., a prior audit), and the meaning of the dry_run default.

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 there are 4 parameters, yet the description never explains dry_run, field_names, issue_codes, or datasource_names. The word 'selected' only faintly implies the filtering params; the agent gets no semantics for how repairs are scoped.

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?

States a specific verb (repair) and resource (calculated-field metadata issues) and clarifies the two operating modes (preview vs apply). It is clearly distinguishable from add/remove/validate siblings, though it never names audit_calculated_fields, the closest related tool, leaving the distinction to be inferred.

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 phrase 'preview or explicitly apply' hints at the intended two-step workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of running audit_calculated_fields first, and no exclusions for when repairs should not be attempted.

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