fix_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that comments/formatting are preserved, that unsafe fixes are never auto-applied, what counts are returned, and the prerequisites for writing to disk. It stops short of covering idempotency or failure behavior when a file is unwritable.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return values, then the safety guarantee, then the write constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return shape, safety guarantees, and write prerequisites. The main remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens with neither path nor yaml supplied), which is minor given the 100% schema coverage.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-parameter constraint the schema only hints at: write is only valid together with path and requires a server-level --rules-dir. It also clarifies lint_rules' semantics beyond the schema's example, adding real value.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Apply safe auto-fixes ... to Sigma YAML') and enumerates the fix categories in parentheses. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lint_rules and validate_rules because it states it applies fixes rather than only reporting them.

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?

States the enabling condition for persistence ('write: true ... only valid with a file path, and only when the server runs with --rules-dir') and how to narrow scope via lint_rules. It doesn't explicitly name validate_rules or lint_rules as the read-only alternatives, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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