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 implies mutation via 'repair' and 'rebuild', but does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires elevated permissions, or how it affects existing data.

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 with the action and affected artifacts front-loaded. It is telegraphic but contains no wasted words, though it could be slightly clearer about scope.

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?

For a repair/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits when to run the tool, safety and impact details, and what the result would be, leaving the agent with too little context beyond the schema.

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 `slug` and `campaign` are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 (repair) and names the artifacts affected: application toolhash sidecars, index, and counters. This is clearer than a tautology, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool `doctor`, which may also diagnose or repair application state.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `doctor`, `prepare`, or `init`. There are no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use exclusions, and no indication of what condition should trigger a repair.

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