hosting_repairDatabaseV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is asynchronous, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., locking, downtime), the nature of the repair (idempotent?), or what the response looks like. This leaves the agent without a complete mental model.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action. Every sentence adds necessary information. No redundancy.

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?

The tool performs a repair operation asynchronously, but without an output schema, the description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, success status). It also omits guidance on re-calling or checking status. Given the tool's complexity, this gap lowers completeness to adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description repeats the schema's info about the name parameter ("Full database name as returned by the list databases endpoint"), adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra credit.

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 clearly states "Repairs corrupted database tables asynchronously." using a specific verb (repairs) and resource (corrupted database tables), and includes the asynchronous nature. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create, delete, or list databases, as it addresses a specific repair use case.

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 says "Use when database errors, crashes, or corruption are reported." This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It also gives a prerequisite: database name must be the full name from list databases endpoint. No exclusion or alternative guide, but clear enough for a focused tool.

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