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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Does not modify the live app until apply_change_set.' This adds critical context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), clarifying that the operation is non-destructive to the live app but does modify the change set. It also provides a reference for path conventions, which is useful. It does not elaborate on idempotency or error behavior, but the staging nuance is valuable.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: the main action, the non-live-side-effect, and the path API reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or vague language. Efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, when it takes effect, and how paths are defined. The schema handles parameter details. Missing explicit references to sibling tools (e.g., apply_change_set) or potential validation steps, but the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 high (83%), so most parameters are already documented. The description adds a reference to the Fine Structure app file API for path semantics, which complements the 'path' parameter but does not explain details like content requirements for upsert vs. delete. Since the schema carries most of the burden, the description adds marginal value, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Stage one file upsert or delete inside a change set.' It identifies the specific action (stage), resource (file change), and scope (one file within a change set). It also distinguishes itself from direct modification tools by noting the change isn't applied until apply_change_set, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage context: you stage a file change for later application via apply_change_set. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over direct file write tools (e.g., write_app_file) or provide exclusions. The mention of apply_change_set is a hint, but the guidance is not explicit enough for an agent to decide between staging and direct modification without additional inference.

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