Repair application

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses the required applications:manage scope, the need for a client-global idempotency key, the confirmation gate, and that the operation is asynchronous and must be polled to completion. That is meaningful behavioral context the structured fields do not provide.

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 purpose and the operational preconditions, with no filler. Every clause (health check, confirmation, polling, permission, idempotency) carries distinct information.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation with rich annotations, the description covers auth, idempotency, confirmation, and async completion. It could better state the blast radius (what repair actually changes on the runtime) or how it differs from restart/reconcile, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including idempotencyKey reuse semantics and the confirmed gate. The description echoes the confirmation and idempotency-key concepts without adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Repair an owned managed application's runtime"), which is clear and concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like restart_application, reconcile_application, or rollback_application, though the workflow framing implies a distinct remediation path.

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?

It prescribes a workflow: read health and events first, confirm the action, then poll installation and events until the queued operation completes. This tells the agent when to invoke it and what companions to use, but stops short of stating exclusions against the sibling repair-like tools.

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