repair_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions enforcing a policy but does not disclose side effects, destructiveness, permission requirements, or what changes occur. For a mutation-like tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 sentence, which is concise but too sparse to be adequately informative. It is front-loaded with the action but omits necessary details, making it underspecified rather than efficiently structured.

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 the complexity of the tool (two opaque parameters, a vague policy mention, and sibling tools like repair_propose), the description is incomplete. It does not connect to the repair workflow, explain what 'accepted' means, or clarify the output schema's content. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters 'contract' and 'proposal'. Both are typed as arbitrary objects with additionalProperties true, leaving the agent with no clue about their structure or role. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the verb 'apply' and the resource 'accepted repair', which clearly indicates the tool's core action. However, the phrase 'after enforcing locked/free policy' introduces ambiguous jargon without explanation, slightly diminishing clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like repair_propose by focusing on the application step.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an accepted repair from repair_propose) or when not to use it. The context 'after enforcing locked/free policy' is vague and does not serve as actionable guidance for an AI agent.

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