fix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that edits are in place, that files are never renamed or moved, that ambiguous cases are withheld into `unfixed`, and that the default is a non-mutating dry run. It even describes the dry-run return payload (file, line, before, after).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and scope in the first clause, followed by the exclusion/alternative mapping and dry-run semantics. Dense but every sentence is load-bearing; the parenthetical output description is slightly packed but justified.

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?

No output schema or annotations, yet the description covers return shape, mutation semantics, and scope limits well. The one real gap is the unexplained `collection` parameter, which an agent needs to scope a run.

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 must compensate. It thoroughly explains dry_run (default true, false to write) but never mentions the `collection` parameter at all, leaving half of the two parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 a specific verb (repair) and resource (validate findings), and enumerates the exact two fix categories it handles: broken links matching exactly one initiative, and depends_on/related front-matter. It also names the sibling tools it is not (repad for padding, renumber for numbers), so an agent can separate it from them without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes non-matching issue types to alternatives (padding to repad, numbers to renumber) and ties invocation to validate findings. It also states the default operating mode (dry run) and how to actually commit (dry_run: false), which is the key usage decision.

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