autofix_contrast_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool 'corrects' issues and targets specific contrast ratios, but it does not explain what actually gets modified, whether the operation is reversible, whether permissions are needed, or what happens when correction is impossible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the core action, target, and compliance thresholds without any filler or repetition. Every phrase earns its place.

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 straightforward tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally mention what the caller can expect after execution, such as whether a correction report or success status is returned.

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 schema already documents all parameters and defaults. The description adds only the WCAG threshold ratios for AA and AAA, which slightly enriches the standard enum but does not substantially extend parameter meaning.

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 uses specific active verbs ('analyzes and corrects') tied to a clear resource ('color contrast issues') and names the exact compliance targets (WCAG 2.1 AA/AAA with ratios). This clearly distinguishes it from broader audit, analysis, and style tools in the sibling list.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need automated color contrast correction to meet WCAG standards. However, it gives no explicit comparison with related tools such as assert_design_rules or audit_design_tokens, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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