Apply change set

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses the full failure model: revision re-checking, rejection of stale previews, backup of originals, atomic write, and rollback on failure. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking an irreversible operation and are not available in the annotations or schema.

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 commit action and its preservation guarantees come first, and every clause carries distinct information with no padding. The trailing parenthetical alias is slightly dislocated from the header claim it qualifies, but it is short enough not to confuse.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, safety behavior, and failure handling thoroughly. It stops short of describing what a successful response contains (e.g., counts of written files or a rollback report), which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 67%: 'confirm' and 'acknowledgeWarnings' are documented in the schema, so the description correctly leaves them alone. It adds only the note that 'any change set id is accepted,' which clarifies that ids from either preview tool work, but says nothing about which changeSetId value the confirm parameter must repeat. Baseline 3 fits because the schema carries most of the load.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Commit a previously previewed change set') and explicitly scopes it to output produced by a preview step, which separates it from database_preview_changes and preview_event_changes. The parenthetical 'Alias of apply_changes; any change set id is accepted' resolves the one sibling that would otherwise be ambiguous.

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?

It states the precondition that a change set must already have been previewed and notes the --allow-write prerequisite, which is clear usage context. It does not say when a caller should instead discard or re-preview a change set, but the alias note removes the need to choose between this tool and apply_changes.

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