lint_repair_apply

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false and idempotent=true; the description adds real context beyond them — CAS canonical writer semantics, refusal of stale targets, the exact approval-string gate, and a 'local stdio only' execution constraint. It does not say what state is mutated on the target page or how to recover from a refusal, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety gate and environment constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description covers the safety gate and environment but omits how to obtain the manifest id/digest, what the call returns, and what happens to the page on success. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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 33%: only `approval` is documented, and its template is repeated in the description with little added value. `manifest_id` and `approved_manifest_digest` remain undefined — the description implies they come from a prior prepare and must match, but never states provenance or format, so the coverage gap is only partly compensated.

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 resource — 'Apply exactly one prepared lint repair' — plus the mechanism ('daemon's CAS canonical writer') and scope ('exactly one'). The word 'prepared' implicitly positions it downstream of lint_repair_prepare and lint_repair_verify, though no sibling is named outright.

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 preconditions: an exact user approval string is required and stale targets are refused, so the agent knows a prepare step and fresh digest are needed. It does not explicitly name lint_repair_prepare/lint_repair_verify as the required adjacent calls or say when to skip this tool.

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