apply_snapshot_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses the crucial default: dry_run=true only returns the plan, so the default call is non-destructive and committing requires an explicit false. It does not detail commit-time side effects, but the write-safety default is clearly communicated.

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 concise clauses convey the action and the safety default without fluff. The key operation is front-loaded, and the dry-run behavior is included in the same sentence.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core purpose and the dry-run default but does not describe what a committed call returns or what happens once dry_run=false. The schema covers parameters, but the missing commit contract keeps this merely adequate.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description adds a high-level link between the two snapshot parameters, but does not provide any parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 definition starts with a concrete action ('Execute a merge plan on the live playlist') and clarifies it by replaying the changes between two snapshots. This makes the tool's purpose specific and lets it stand apart from plan-only or full-restore sibling tools.

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 provides clear usage context: use this tool to execute a merge plan, and keep dry_run true to just preview the plan. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the behavior is not ambiguous enough to mislead an agent.

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