repair_feature

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'plan or apply' but does not clarify what 'plan' does (e.g., preview vs. dry-run) or whether operations are destructive or reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation-capable tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists operations. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for the tool's 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 tool with three parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the planning mode's output, the operations array format, or the document_id requirement, leaving an agent without enough information to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the operations (rename, suppress, delete) but does not explain the structure of the 'operations' array, the meaning of 'apply', or the role of 'document_id'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's raw property names.

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 the verb (repair) and resource (existing 3D features) and enumerates the specific operations (rename, suppress, or delete). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_features and inspect_feature, which have different purposes.

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 usage for repairing features but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like repair_sketch or apply_changeset. No exclusions or conditions are provided; the 'bounded' qualifier hints at scope but is not explicit.

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