poker_applyChanges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it applies changes to actual files (implying mutation/destructive action), performs automatic backup (safety measure), and handles 'all pending changes' (scope). However, it doesn't detail error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what 'pending changes' entails, leaving gaps 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, efficient sentence in Japanese that front-loads the core action ('apply all pending changes') and includes essential context (automatic backup). Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavioral hints but lacks details on error cases, return values, or system state changes. For a mutation tool that applies changes to files, more context on outcomes (e.g., success confirmation, rollback on failure) would improve completeness, though the concise description covers minimum essentials.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying that 'backup_comment' relates to the automatic backup mentioned, and 'force' might override warnings. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('apply') and target ('pending changes to actual YAML files'), specifying the scope ('all pending changes') and mentioning automatic backup execution. It distinguishes from siblings like 'propose' or 'update' tools by focusing on finalizing changes rather than creating or modifying individual components. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific alternatives like 'poker_executeCalculation'.

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 implies usage when pending changes need to be finalized, suggesting a workflow where changes are first proposed then applied. It mentions automatic backup, hinting at a safety measure. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if no pending changes exist) or clear alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity about the exact triggering context.

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