pbi_apply_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it verifies the project state and rejects the plan if changes occurred, and it supports an optional expected_operation check that returns 'plan_operation_mismatch'. This goes beyond what annotations would provide, though it does not mention permissions, rollback, or the full impact of applying the plan.

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 three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, safety check, and optional parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the core behavior and the safety mechanism, and the output schema covers return values. However, with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the lack of detail on 'plan_token', 'confirm', and 'request_id' makes the description incomplete for a tool that applies potentially significant changes.

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 explains the 'expected_operation' parameter, detailing its optional nature and the mismatch error. The other three parameters (plan_token, confirm, request_id) are not explained at all, leaving a significant gap in understanding required inputs and controls.

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 function: 'Aplica un plan calculado con pbi_plan_change o con un dry_run.' It specifies a concrete verb ('aplica') and resource ('plan'), and references the sibling tool pbi_plan_change to distinguish plan creation from application, effectively differentiating it from other apply-type siblings.

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 the usage context: the plan must have been generated by pbi_plan_change or a dry run. It also describes a prerequisite condition (the project state must match the planned state) and the failure behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pbi_apply_audit_fixes or state when not to use this tool.

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