hcl_fix_plan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a copy rather than mutating the input, and it preserves manually supplied addresses and services. It does not explain the repair scope, failure modes, or what other parts of the plan may be changed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording: it states the outcome and the preservation behavior immediately. It is concise and well-structured, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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 a complex topology-plan schema, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is significantly under-specified. It does not explain what repair means, what the returned copy contains, or when this tool is the right choice. Annotations cover safety but not operational completeness.

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 single parameter is a large nested TopologyPlan object. The description only hints that the plan contains manually supplied addresses and services, without explaining the plan structure, required contents, or how the repair uses those fields. The schema's titles and constraints help, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states that it returns a repaired copy of a plan and preserves manually supplied addresses and services. However, it never defines what 'repaired' means, what defects are fixed, or how the result differs from sibling tools like hcl_validate_plan or hcl_plan_topology. The purpose is only vaguely identifiable from the name and wording.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcl_validate_plan, hcl_plan_topology, hcl_explain_plan, or hcl_stage_copy. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'repaired copy'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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