docs_auto_fix_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does signal that the tool mutates files by 'updates and rewrites,' but it does not mention the dryRun default behavior, reversibility, backup, or permission needs. For a mutation-capable tool without annotations, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 that front-loads the action and states the triggering condition. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 core invocation details are covered by the schema and the concise description. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns, especially in dryRun mode, which is important for an agent interpreting whether to proceed with actual changes.

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 are already well documented. The description adds high-level context about markdown links and moved target files but does not need to add parameter-level detail because the schema handles 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 states a specific action ('updates and rewrites broken markdown links') and a clear trigger ('when target files have moved'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling docs_check_broken_links, but the fix-vs-check contrast is reasonably clear.

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 implies when to use the tool: after markdown target files have moved and links are broken. It provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it mention the natural alternative docs_check_broken_links, so the agent must infer the check-only vs. fix workflow.

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