fix_sequences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool defaults to a dry run and only writes when 'apply: true' is passed, which is a critical safety behavior. It also explains the underlying problem. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or output format, but the dry-run default is a significant transparency win.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and trigger condition; the second states the critical safety default. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it does, when it is needed, and the dry-run safety default. It does not describe the return value or side effects beyond 'write', but the core knowledge an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; 'apply: true to write' merely restates the schema's boolean description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reset') with a specific resource ('serial/identity sequences') and a precise condition ('fallen behind MAX(column)'). It clearly distinguishes this fix operation from sibling tools like inspect_sequences by framing it as the corrective action for the duplicate-key state left by dumps.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when sequences have fallen behind MAX(column), i.e., the duplicate-key state. It also explains the dry-run default and how to switch to write mode. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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