apply_change

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It states that it applies a change and requires confirmation, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires special permissions. This leaves significant 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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose and precondition without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a simple parameter set, the description lacks critical context about side effects, rollback options, and the overall workflow. For a mutating action that follows planning and confirmation, one expects more guidance on how to use it safely and what happens after 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 indirectly hints at the roles of change_id (the previously planned change) and confirmation_token (explicit user confirmation), but does not explain their format or relationship in a direct way. This provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema field names.

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), the target (one previously planned change), and the precondition (explicit user confirmation). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'plan_*' tools by being the execution step, and from 'inspect_change' by being the apply step.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: after a change has been planned and explicitly confirmed by the user. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the workflow clear, and the precondition narrows the usage appropriately.

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