fix-template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Fix' implies mutation, but no details are given about whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions (credentials are in schema but not mentioned), or what the outcome is. The description lacks transparency about side effects or limitations.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, but this brevity sacrifices informativeness. While it is front-loaded, it does not 'earn its place' as it fails to provide necessary details. A slightly longer description would improve comprehension without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not clarify how issues are fixed, what the action values mean, or the role of credentials. The agent lacks sufficient information 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?

Schema description coverage is low (25%), and the tool's description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema. The description does not explain the meaning of the 'issue' enum values, the 'action' options, or the credentials object. The schema partially describes some properties, but the description adds zero value to parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('fix') and resource ('non-compliant template issues'), indicating a repair function. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'validate-template', which may also deal with compliance but only identifies issues. The verb+resource is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'validate-template' or 'create-compliant-template'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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