profile_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that files (locks, .zshenv) and permissions are modified, which is useful, but it never states whether the changes are reversible, whether elevated privileges are required, whether it is idempotent, or what the caller gets back.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action verbs and their objects, with no filler. It is efficient but verges on under-specification rather than excess, so it is not quite top marks for structure.

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?

This is a mutating maintenance tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. The description covers what is touched but omits preconditions, safety implications of permission reconciliation, and parameter meaning, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description should compensate but does not: neither "name" nor the hub/ide "target" enum is mentioned. A reader cannot tell from prose what hub vs ide scoping means, though the 'sandbox .zshenv' phrasing loosely implies a per-profile filesystem target.

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 names concrete operations and resources: cleaning stale Chromium locks and reconciling sandbox .zshenv and permissions, which fits the repair verb of the tool name. It is clear what the tool does but does not distinguish it from siblings like system_doctor or profile_inspect, which plausibly overlap in diagnostics/repair territory.

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?

"When stopped" is a precondition rather than usage guidance; it implies the profile must not be running but never says how to check or what happens otherwise. There is no guidance on when to choose this over system_doctor, profile_inspect, or obligations_verify.

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