eslint_fix_violations

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly signals an automatic, codebase-wide mutating operation and flags the 'Pro feature' status, which hints at auth/pricing requirements. It does not, however, disclose whether files are edited in place, whether changes are reversible, or what the API key is specifically needed for.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical 'Pro feature' earns its place by signaling an important access constraint.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin for a tool that likely modifies source files across a codebase. It omits side effects, expected results, error/authorization behavior, and any guidance on required inputs beyond the schema's generic directory description.

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 only 50%, with api_key undocumented. The description adds mild value by implying directory maps to the codebase and that this is a Pro feature likely requiring api_key, but it does not explain parameter formats, relationships, or invocation prerequisites.

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 verb ('Auto-fix'), the resource ('ESLint violations'), and the scope ('across codebase'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by action, but it does not explicitly name an alternative such as eslint_generate_config or eslint_add_plugins.

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 the tool should be used when existing ESLint violations need automatic correction, and the 'across codebase' scope gives some context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives.

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