Autofix & Re-Render Workflow ($0 Free)

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds real context beyond that: deterministic healing of orphan nodes and broken/missing decision branches, layout recomputation, zero compute cost/unlimited calls, and that a fresh spec is returned rather than mutating in place. It stops short of describing failure behavior on invalid specs or whether caller-supplied layout is discarded.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the return values and the usage trigger. Slightly diluted by promotional framing ('$0 compute cost, instant, unlimited') that partially duplicates the title and the parenthetical.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the exact returned artifacts, and for a three-parameter healing tool it covers purpose, triggers and side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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% across all three parameters, so spec/authToken/orientation are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely restates that spec is the object to heal and implies layout options via 'recomputes deterministic orthogonal layout', adding little parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 action set: deterministic connector healing plus full re-rendering, and enumerates the returned artifacts (spec, svg, mermaid, excalidraw, studioUrl). It is distinct from compile/revise/enhance by being a heal-and-rerender pass, but the description never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives two concrete triggers: after direct structural edits to VisualSpec nodes/edges, or when a user asks to autofix connectors. That is a clear when-to-use statement. It does not say when *not* to use it or which sibling (compile_workflow, revise_workflow, enhance_workflow) handles the adjacent cases.

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