contentrain_apply

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: no changes on dry run, file writes and branch commits on execute, required branch health check, and that normalizes always use review workflow (no auto-merge). This fully contextualizes the tool's side effects.

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 well-structured: starts with purpose, then details modes, workflow, and constraints. While informative, it is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains all key behaviors (dry run vs execute, modes, constraints) but omits return format. For a tool with complex input, it covers the necessary context for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level parameter context (e.g., mode distinction, dry run default) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No significant added 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 the tool applies normalize operations with two distinct modes ('extract' and 'reuse'), specifying the verb 'apply' and resource 'normalize operations'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contentrain_content_save or contentrain_merge by focusing on a specialized workflow.

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 explicit usage guidance: recommends a two-step workflow (dry run then execute), explains mode selection, and mentions branch health check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly to siblings.

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