iac_fix_issues

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'auto-fix' and 'Pro feature.' It does not mention that files will be modified, what changes are applied, whether the operation is reversible, or how api_key is used. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the 'found by scanning' and 'Pro feature' notes add context without fluff. It sacrifices some behavioral detail for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutating action, this description is too thin. Missing prerequisites, side-effect scope, and behavioral details make it incomplete for an agent to safely decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already describes directory and issue_type (67% coverage). The enum values terraform/docker/k8s combined with 'IaC' give reasonable context; api_key remains undocumented but is self-explanatory.

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 the action (auto-fix), the object (IaC security issues found by scanning), and contrasts with the iac_scan_* siblings, which only scan. Supported IaC types are encoded in the issue_type enum, though not restated in the description.

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 'found by scanning' implies the tool should be used after a scan, and the Pro feature note adds a precondition. However, it does not explicitly name scan siblings or state when not to use the tool, leaving routing to inference.

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