fsv_fixes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose non-obvious behavior: only actually-found issues produce a snippet, and CSP is emitted report-only rather than enforced. It never explicitly states that the tool is read-only/non-mutating or what access prerequisites apply, which is the remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then constrained by platform values and output rules. Every clause carries information: platform list, per-issue emission, report-only CSP, and the user-facing follow-up.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the description still covers output semantics (snippets only for found issues, report-only CSP). Missing is provenance for scan_id and whether scan ownership must be verified first (note sibling fsv_verify_ownership).

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 0% with no enum on 'server', so the description does critical compensating work by listing the exact five accepted values and clarifying what each emits ('express' means helmet/cookies, 'dns' means SPF/DMARC/CAA plus dangling-record removal). It implies scan_id must come from an existing scan but never says where to obtain one.

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?

States a specific verb and transformation ('turn a scan's findings into paste-ready remediation') plus an explicit scope of one platform, and enumerates the accepted platform values. An agent can distinguish it from fsv_scan (which finds issues) and fsv_get_report (which reports them) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete follow-through guidance — 'show the user the snippets and remind them to test on staging' — which frames the correct usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., versus fsv_triage or fsv_get_report), so exclusions are absent.

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