heal_parser_preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it discloses the refetch of the source page, the conditional adoption rule (only if new selectors extract more), the no-op outcome, and — notably — the billing implication ('not billed' when no improvement). This is rich, safety-relevant context that an agent needs before invoking a mutation-like repair.

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 well-structured sentence with an em-dash clarifier that carries zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the conditional caveat and billing note, each earning its place. No redundant modifiers or filler.

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 compact tool (2 params, 1 required, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the operation, the conditional adoption behavior, and the billing consequence — everything essential to call it safely. The only minor gap is the unspecified return value, but given the tool's simple nature and absent output schema, this is not a critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (preset_id and force, including force's cooldown-bypass purpose). The description adds the operational meaning of 'heal' but does not elaborate on parameter formats or semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Regenerate a preset's selectors now') and immediately grounds it in context ('the manual trigger for the automatic repair'). This clearly distinguishes the heal operation from sibling tools like save_parser_preset or generate_parser by framing it as a repair trigger rather than a creation or edit.

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 explains the tool's role as the manual trigger for an automatic repair process, giving clear context for when an agent would invoke it. It also documents the edge case behavior (nothing better found → untouched). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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