repair_semantic_issues

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description's verb 'Apply' implies modification without adding detail. The description does not disclose whether operations are reversible, require prior validation, or affect other model aspects, failing to enrich beyond the annotated destructive nature.

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 brief sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While concise, it is not front-loaded with key information (e.g., tool scope, effect), and the jargon reduces efficiency. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not fully serve the agent.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, destructiveHint, output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter roles, or prerequisites. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving gaps in agent understanding.

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 0% with six parameters, but the description mentions none. Parameters like 'repair_ids', 'auto_layout', and 'rollback_on_error' are undefined, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names which may be ambiguous.

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 states 'Apply selected deterministic semantic relationship repairs,' which identifies a specific action and resource. However, the term 'deterministic semantic relationship repairs' is jargon and not explained, reducing clarity compared to more self-explanatory sibling tools like 'validate_semantics'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for editing, validation, and reporting, the lack of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use advice leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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