apply_changes

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/not-idempotent annotations: it discloses the lockout self-protection logic, the exact refuse-vs-warn boundary (alias destinations, 'any', interface groups warn), that dry_run returns the full change set and assessment, and that override should only be used with console access. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with tags and the one-line purpose, then justification, then Args. Every sentence earns its place, though dry_run is explained twice (body and Args), a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety preconditions, the preview path, and the escape hatch. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 0% and there are 3 optional params, so the description carries full burden — and it does: dry_run's return semantics, override's meaning and audience, and target as a config name defaulting when omitted. All three params are explained with meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 — commit the staged firewall config — and pins its role in the workflow as the 'make it live' step after staging via toggle_rule. An agent can tell it apart from staging siblings like toggle_rule immediately.

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?

Clearly positions itself as the commit step following staged edits (naming toggle_rule), prescribes dry_run before every apply, and restricts override to operators with out-of-band access. It stops short of pointing at pending_changes or undo_apply as the inspection/reversal alternatives, so 4 rather than 5.

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