apply_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a mutating operation ('applies code patches') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or any requirements such as permissions or safety mechanisms.

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 concise and front-loaded with a purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. No unnecessary information is included, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description adequately covers the parameters and the overall action, especially given the presence of an output schema. However, it lacks usage context and confusingly overlaps with the sibling 'heal_dependency_calls', and does not mention any prerequisites or project setup, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema provides zero parameter descriptions, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining symbol_name, change_type (with enumerations), and metadata (with expected keys). This goes beyond the schema's bare types and adds significant meaning.

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 it 'Generates and applies code patches to heal broken call-sites across the project', identifying a specific action and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'heal_dependency_calls', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'heal_dependency_calls' or other refactoring tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or situations where another tool might be preferred.

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