pbi_apply_audit_fixes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains that each action is executed via its own safe path ('transaccion, verificacion y rollback'), that failures are reported without stopping other actions, and that errors are not hidden. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent important expectations about side effects and failure handling.

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 exceptionally concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide essential requirements and behavioral details. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, a mandatory flag, and critical runtime behavior. It omits details about the nature of actions and the request_id parameter, but the overall context is sufficient for a moderately complex tool.

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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it defines 'actions' as the ones from pbi_plan_audit_fixes and clarifies that 'confirm' must be true. However, it does not explain 'request_id' or the structure of items in the actions array, so the compensation is incomplete.

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's purpose: 'Aplica las acciones devueltas por pbi_plan_audit_fixes' (Applies the actions returned by pbi_plan_audit_fixes). It uses a specific verb ('aplica') and names the exact resource (actions from the plan tool), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_plan_audit_fixes and pbi_apply_plan.

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 establishes clear context by referencing the planning step that produces the actions, and imposes a critical precondition: 'Requiere confirm=true'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the reference to the plan tool makes the intended workflow (plan first, then apply) obvious.

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