pws_apply_show_plan

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

Annotations already signal a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it persists new segments, validates them, and rolls back newly created segments if a later addition fails. It does not describe what existing data might be affected, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler; the core purpose is uppercase-front-loaded and the confirmation requirement is called out. The term 'SAVE' is slightly ambiguous, but the description remains compact and to the point.

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?

Covers the purpose, side effects, and atomic rollback behavior of a complex five-parameter destructive booking tool. It does not explain what the result of a successful apply looks like, what 'SAVE' refers to, or how allowOverrun/allowMultipleMatches affect behavior. More would be helpful for such a potentially destructive operation, but the essentials are present.

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%, and the description only mentions confirmed=true. The key parameters showId, segments, allowOverrun, and allowMultipleMatches are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter-level guidance. Some nested fields have schema descriptions, but top-level parameter semantics are not clarified.

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 ('BOOK') and resource ('REVIEWED CARD'), and clarifies that it adds validated match/angle segments. It does not explicitly contrast with pws_plan_show or pws_validate_show_plan, but the 'reviewed + confirmed' framing makes its commit-to-save role clear enough.

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 'REVIEWED CARD' and the requirement 'confirmed=true' imply this tool is used after planning/validation, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives. The usage context 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.