apply_issue_plan

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, destructive, and idempotent. The description adds atomicity (all-or-nothing) which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not explain the nature of the destructive effects or behavior on invalid plans.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core action and scope efficiently, though it could be slightly longer to include usage context.

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 tool's complexity (six parameters, three array types, and atomic semantics), a one-sentence description is inadequate. It lacks critical context about what constitutes a valid plan, how atomicity behaves on failure, what the output schema contains, and its relationship to validate_issue_plan.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description should compensate for the core array parameters (issues, decisions, relations) and idempotency_key. It only names the resources without elaborating on structure, ref usage, or how they interrelate, leaving the schema field names as the primary guide.

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 identifies the action (create) and the resources (issues, relations, decisions) with the atomicity qualifier. It distinguishes itself from single-entity tools like create_issue, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'from a valid plan' implies a prerequisite of validation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_import or create_issue. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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