Repair mechanical config problems

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

Even with annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: dry-run by default, backup creation before any write, and a safety check that nothing is written unless the repaired copy parses cleanly. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by essential safety behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete: it explains what gets repaired, the default mode, backup, and validation. A minor gap is the lack of precedence rules when both cwd and file are provided, but that is a detail rather than a blocking omission.

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 cwd, file, and dry_run are all described in the input schema. The description reinforces dry_run's default behavior but does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Repair MCP config files that fail to parse', and narrows the scope with 'mechanical repairs only (strip JSON comments and trailing commas)'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling triage_scan, which is a scan tool by name.

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 gives clear context: use when config files fail to parse and need mechanical fixes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for non-mechanical issues), so it falls short of the highest bar.

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