Edtb Apply Mutations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the dry-run behavior, rollback-on-error semantics, and the two execution strategies. This is solid transparency, though it does not explicitly state that the tool modifies files or project state by default.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by strategy, dry-run behavior, and rollback guarantee. Every sentence carries useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 covers safety-critical behavior well but leaves the most important input semantics unexplained. With no parameter descriptions in the schema and a complex ops array, the tool is not fully callable by an agent without additional external knowledge. The presence of an output schema helps, but it does not compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dryRun and planHash indirectly, but it does not explain the structure or meaning of the required 'ops' array, nor the role of 'projectPath'. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid 'ops' payload from this description.

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 action: apply a batch of mutations using the hash of a fresh plan. It also names two strategies (edt-mcp and file), which differentiates it from sibling tools like edtb_plan_mutations.

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 practical guidance on how to use the tool: dryRun returns a diff preview without applying, and failed file mutations are rolled back from backup. It implies this tool should be used after a plan is created, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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