rws_amendment_apply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description adds the meaningful claim that raw records and prior report snapshots remain unchanged, reinforcing non-destructiveness. However it says nothing about what approval actually mutates, whether the pending amendment is consumed, or what happens on revision mismatch.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the caller constraint, with no filler. Brevity here is efficient rather than under-specified, though it leaves little room for the missing parameter context.

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 four-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from it how to construct amendmentRef or what expectedRevision guards against, which are the main failure modes for this call.

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% for four required parameters, including a nested amendmentRef object, yet the description explains none of them. 'Exact' gives only the faintest hint that amendmentRef and expectedRevision must match current state; the concurrency/versioning semantics of expectedRevision are left entirely undocumented.

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 ('approval'/'apply') and resource ('pending amendment'), and 'exact' plus 'human-only' narrows it usefully. It implicitly contrasts with the propose/dismiss siblings but never names them.

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 phrase 'exact pending amendment' implies a prior propose step must exist and that approval rather than rejection is intended, but the description never says when to use this instead of rws_amendment_propose or rws_amendment_dismiss. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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