Repair Database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does not mention potential side effects such as downtime, data loss, or whether repairs are reversible. The term 'repair' implies a mutation, but no details are given about what happens during the process.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, making it concise. It is not verbose, but it is also quite terse; however, it avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description still lacks important context about the repair operation's behavior, prerequisites, and possible side effects. An agent would know the parameters but not what 'repair' entails or when it should be used.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (name and username) with clear descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 'Repair a corrupted database.' clearly states the tool's action (repair) and resource (database). It distinguishes itself from sibling DB tools like hosting_db_create, hosting_db_delete, etc., by adding the 'corrupted' condition. However, it is brief and could be more specific about the repair scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It merely states the function without explaining scenarios (e.g., when a database is corrupted) or mentioning related tools like hosting_db_change_password or hosting_db_delete.

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