Plan a VisiMark repair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces and extends this: it lists exactly what is repaired (stale computed values, anchors, generated artifacts), what is never touched (prose, columns with no rule, other finding classes), and the `skipped` behavior for content-only input. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: purpose first, then the no-write/apply contract, then the repair scope, then the content-mode caveat. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value context, and it does name the key surfaces (the plan's generated artifacts and `skipped`). It stops short of describing the full shape of the returned plan, so a small gap remains for an agent that needs to inspect the plan programmatically.

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%, so the `path`/`content` contract is already documented; the description still adds semantic meaning by explaining the consequence of using `content` (no directory, so imports and generated artifacts cannot be verified) and what `skipped` then reports. That goes beyond the schema text, though it covers only one of the two parameters.

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 concrete verb (plan the edits) and resource (a document's stored numbers vs. its formulas), and adds that it names the artifacts it would write. It explicitly routes to the sibling `visimark_fmt_apply` for applying the plan, so an agent can distinguish this from the write-side tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use and a next-step alternative ('pass the returned plan to `visimark_fmt_apply`'), plus the destructive-path caveat ('Nothing is written'). It does not distinguish this plan step from the other read-side siblings such as `visimark_check` or `visimark_ref`, which is the remaining gap.

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