ba_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'materialize/update' implying write operations but does not describe side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if derived_from is missing), permissions needed, or the outcome of successful execution. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and key constraint. It is concise without unnecessary words, achieving efficiency. A minor improvement could be adding structure for clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (many required and optional nested parameters, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the artifact structure, the meaning of operation types, or expected output. The derived_from constraint alone is insufficient to guide correct 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 for lack of parameter documentation in text. The description only emphasizes the 'derived_from' constraint, ignoring other important fields like op, type, status, and nested structures. It adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool materializes/updates documents from recorded decisions, with a specific constraint that every artifact must cite derived_from decisions. This verb+resource+constraint makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like ba_assess or ba_get.

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 one usage constraint (must cite derived_from) but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ba_finalize or ba_plan. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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