Repair lock checksum

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

Annotations provide readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, but the description adds important context: confirm=true is mandatory, the file is blessed as-is, and the caller should inspect contents first. This meaningfully goes beyond the structured 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, front-loaded with the core action and parameter requirement, followed by usage context and caution. No wasted words.

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 single-boolean-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to be careful about. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents confirm well. The description adds value by clarifying that confirm=true is explicitly required for acceptance, not merely that the parameter must be present.

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 action on a specific resource: accept current state.lock contents and recompute its checksum. Clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling check tool, which verifies mismatches rather than repairing them.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to a last resort after check reports a checksum mismatch following manual edit or merge. It also tells the agent to inspect contents first, providing a clear safety check before invocation.

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