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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a numbered version, which is useful versioning context, but it omits atomicity, permissions, and what happens to prior versions.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though 'Keep' is slightly colloquial and less precise than 'apply'.

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 mutation with optional site, draft_id, and proposal_id selectors plus an operations array, the description is too thin. It does not explain the relationship between draft_id and proposal_id, atomicity, or the expected versioning outcome, relying heavily on schema and annotations.

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 100%, and each parameter already has detailed descriptions, including draft_id, proposal_id, operations, and all-at-once application. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond this strong schema baseline.

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 action (keep a staged set of changes) and outcome (saved as a numbered version of the site). It communicates a commit-like operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as propose_edit, publish, or rollback.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. At best, the phrase 'staged set of changes' implies it is used after a staging step, but the agent must infer this.

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