seo_generate_code_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the most critical trait: the tool is non-destructive by default and only modifies disk when applyDirectly is explicitly true. It also clarifies that the default output is a unified diff preview. A note about error handling or handling of pre-existing tags would be additional value, but the core side-effect behavior is well covered.

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 efficiently organized into overview, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency sections. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or repetition. The most important scoping and safety information is front-loaded, and the bullet-list format makes the guidance easy for an agent to parse.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it fixes, which frameworks it supports, when to use it, and what the default output and side-effect behavior are. It also points to seo_validate_code_fix as the required follow-up. A brief note on behavior when no fixes are generated would push it to a 5, but nothing critical is missing.

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 parameters are already thoroughly documented in the input schema. The description adds helpful context by naming the categories of fixes and emphasizing framework-awareness, but it does not add parameter-interdependency or syntax details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline-3 expectation for fully covered schemas.

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 names the exact action ('Generates framework-aware code fixes') and enumerates the target resources (missing titles, meta descriptions, canonical URLs, JSON-LD schemas, WebMCP discovery links) plus the supported frameworks (Laravel Blade, Next.js, HTML, PHP, Astro, Svelte). It also identifies the unified diff preview output, which sets clear expectations. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling audit, sitemap, and validation tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use after audit tools detect...') and provides a direct exclusion ('Do NOT use for general code refactoring unrelated to metadata, schema, or SEO tags'). It also gives a sequencing instruction to run seo_validate_code_fix immediately after applying changes, which is highly actionable for an agent.

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