Apply Strategy Repair

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

Given that annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds value by explicitly stating that the old validation capability is invalidated. This is a meaningful behavioral side effect not captured by the annotations, though further side-effect detail is sparse.

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, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise but somewhat under-specified; it states the core action and side effect without elaboration.

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?

With seven required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no usage guidance, this description is far from complete for an agent to invoke the tool safely. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the operational context and parameter semantics are still major gaps.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining the seven required parameters. It only weakly hints at 'exact-hash' and 'validation', leaving draft_id, relative_path, content, expected_revision, and idempotency_key semantically unexplained.

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 ('apply') and names a concrete operation ('exact-hash repair') with a clear side effect ('invalidate the old validation capability'). This distinguishes it from siblings like apply_strategy_changes and validate_strategy_draft, though 'exact-hash repair' remains somewhat domain-specific jargon.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_strategy_changes or validate_strategy_draft. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool are provided, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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