apply_expose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses key behaviors: convergence (applying twice is a no-op), revocation of dropped items, and dark-by-default tables. Missing details include authentication requirements, error responses, and rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are well-covered.

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 paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose. It is reasonably concise given the complexity of the tool (about 100 words). However, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer structure to improve scanability, though it does not contain unnecessary information.

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 the complex nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers essential context: convergence behavior, security implications (dark tables), and the structure of the manifest. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites, but these are less critical for a tool that likely returns a simple success status.

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 coverage is 100% for the two top-level parameters, and the nested manifest is thoroughly described in the input schema. However, the description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema: it explains convergence, the dark-by-default security model, and the purpose of manifest sections (tables, views, rpcs). This provides critical context that the schema alone does not.

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: 'Apply a declarative authorization manifest to a project'. It specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, details the manifest contents (tables, views, rpcs), and highlights distinguishing features like convergence and dark-by-default behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_expose (which reads) and validate_manifest (which only validates).

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 explains what the tool does and its convergent nature, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like run_sql or scaffold_roles. It implies usage for applying authorization manifests, but lacks when-not-to-use or context on prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions).

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