applyedit_sheet's old name. Use edit_sheet.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"doc": "<doc>"
},
"name": "apply"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | ||
| key | No | ||
| ops | No | ||
| base | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| undo | No | ||
| dryRun | No | ||
| expect | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the one thing annotations cannot express: that this entry is superseded and should not be chosen. It says nothing about what a mutation through this alias would actually change, but that is partly excused by the redirect.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the identifying fact is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing the deprecation signal.
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 deprecated alias aimed at avoidance, the description does the essential job: names the replacement and discourages invocation. It is incomplete for anyone who actually calls it, since none of the 8 parameters or the mutation behavior are explained, and there is no output schema to fall back on.
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?
The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, including ambiguous ones like 'base', 'expect', 'undo', 'note' and 'ops'. The description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever, not even the implicit claim that the signature mirrors edit_sheet. For a low-coverage schema this is a complete gap.
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 this tool is a deprecated alias and identifies the replacement explicitly ('edit_sheet's old name'). An agent immediately knows this is the legacy name of edit_sheet rather than a distinct capability. It never describes the underlying operation, but for an alias that is arguably redundant with edit_sheet's own definition.
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?
It gives an unambiguous directive: 'Use edit_sheet.' That is an explicit when-not-to-use-this rule naming the correct alternative, which is exactly what selection guidance should look like. There is nothing left to infer about routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.