Apply

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried entirely by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never mentions that a mutating rollout occurs, that dry_run defaults to true, or what side effects a non-dry run produces. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero context on top of them.

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 single sentence is trivially short and front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing after it. Its brevity is under-specification rather than economy — nothing in it earns its place because it conveys no information beyond the title.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutating rollout tool with a dry_run flag and a plan/status/release sibling family, the description supplies none of the operational context an agent needs. It has no output schema dependency to hide behind either, but the description refuses to explain what applying does or what state it leaves behind.

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 every one of the 8 parameters (including the required dependency and floor) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than a penalty.

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?

"Apply (rm_rollout)." restates the title and a fragment of the tool name rather than stating what the tool does. It never says what is being applied (a dependency floor rollout) or how that differs from rm_rollout_plan, rm_rollout_status, or rm_rollout_release. This is essentially tautological.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of any alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call rm_rollout_apply, rm_rollout_plan first, or rm_rollout_release afterward, even though those siblings exist and are obviously related.

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