annotation_repair_dimension_layout

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

The description aligns with the destructiveHint annotation by mentioning removal and fixing. However, it adds no additional behavioral details such as what exactly gets destroyed, required permissions, or rate limits. The title provides some context but is not part of the description.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately 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?

Given that the tool has an output schema, no required parameters, and a destructive hint, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what kind of data is expected, how the screenshot parameter affects behavior, or what the output looks like. The title and annotations provide some context, but the description itself is incomplete.

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?

The description provides no information about the parameters (data, include_screenshot). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the bare schema structure.

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 tool's purpose: removing duplicates and fixing issues related to safe layer/style/lane from a fresh audit. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like annotation_audit_dimensions or annotation_plan_dimensions, which might also deal with layout issues.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'from a fresh audit' implies it is used after an audit, but this is not explicit, and there is no mention of when not to use it.

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