repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight and delivers: it discloses that the operation mutates state ('Start one repair'), that it requires the in-app «Разрешить ИИ чинить приложение» permission, and that the outcome is asynchronous and must be validated via wait_and_check. It omits error/retry semantics and whether a repair can be started while another is in flight.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability and action vocabulary first, prerequisite second, verification path last. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mutation, the permission gate, the full action list, and the prescribed verification step. The one gap is return/response shape or failure behavior, which nothing else in the definition supplies.

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 0% and the 'action' property has no enum, so the description is the sole source of the accepted value vocabulary — and it supplies all five literals, which is the key information an agent needs. It says nothing about invalid-action behavior or whether values are case-sensitive, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Start one repair') on a specific resource and immediately enumerates the closed set of actions it accepts (retry_login, refresh_schedule, reopen_lecture, restart_browser, start_scanner). It also names the sibling wait_and_check as the follow-up step, so an agent can place it in the workflow without reading other schemas.

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?

'Start one repair from a problem's actions' frames the trigger condition, and 'Check the result with wait_and_check' routes the agent to the correct next tool. It does not state any when-not conditions (e.g. don't call if a repair is already running), so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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