auto_fix_component

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully bounds scope to 'common' accessibility and performance issues and states the return value, implying a non-destructive transform that hands back markup. It does not say whether every finding will be fixed, what happens to unfixable findings, or whether anything is written to disk.

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?

Two tight sentences: the fix behavior and its scope lead, followed by the return value. No padding or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope limits, and the return shape (corrected markup plus applied-fix list). It is only mildly short on edge-case behavior such as findings it cannot auto-fix.

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 100%, so both parameters (markup, findings) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or size guidance beyond referencing 'audit findings', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (fix) and resource (markup issues) scoped to accessibility and performance problems derived from audit findings. The phrase 'based on audit findings' effectively ties it to the audit_component sibling, though it does not name that sibling outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: the input 'findings' come from an audit, so the natural workflow (audit_component then auto_fix_component) is inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus auditing again, nor when not to run it.

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