pws_apply_show_plan

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

The description discloses a rollback behavior—'rolls back newly created segments if a later addition fails'—which goes beyond what annotations (destructiveHint=true) provide. It also states the confirmed=true requirement. These are meaningful contextual details that help the agent anticipate 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the key action in caps. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition. It is a model of concise writing.

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 core behavior and a key safety property (rollback) are communicated, but the tool has five parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the optional flags (allowOverrun, allowMultipleMatches) or the semantics of showId. It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for full autonomous invocation.

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 only clarifies 'segments' as 'validated match/angle segments' and 'confirmed' as requiring true. Other parameters like showId, allowOverrun, and allowMultipleMatches are not explained. This is insufficient for a five-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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 action: 'BOOK A REVIEWED CARD INTO THE SAVE' and elaborates with 'Adds validated match/angle segments.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pws_validate_show_plan and pws_plan_show by focusing on application/booking.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires confirmed=true.' It also implies that the card should be 'reviewed,' suggesting a prior validation step. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude misuse, leaving some ambiguity about when this tool should be chosen over pws_execute_action or others.

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