apply_run

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only 'successful edit worker's reviewed patch' should be applied and that it targets the 'original Git checkout,' which implies mutating the working tree. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting local changes, requiring a clean checkout, or whether the patch is committed.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical precondition follows immediately in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and precondition well, but it omits run_id semantics and the post-apply behavior (e.g., return value, whether the checkout is updated in place). These gaps matter for an agent invoking a mutation.

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 input schema has one required parameter, run_id, with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description never explicitly states that run_id refers to the edit run whose patch should be applied. The agent must infer this from the tool name and context, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a successful edit worker's reviewed patch to its original Git checkout.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_run, start_edit, and continue_run. The annotation title 'Apply reviewed Antigravity patch' reinforces the same unambiguous purpose.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Run only after Codex has inspected the patch and validation evidence.' This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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