Apply Edit Plan

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds substantive behavior: identity revalidation before activation, an edit-capability requirement, token freshness invalidation on changed targets, and the constraint that ripple plans need the reviewed sequence active for the read-only QE sync-lock preflight. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action (apply a previewed compound edit) followed by prerequisites and constraints. No filler, though the final sentence's 'QE sync-lock preflight' jargon is opaque and could cost an agent comprehension.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the key gating behaviors: preview requirement, capability, token, and ripple/active-sequence constraint. It is nearly complete, though it omits failure semantics (e.g. whether a partially applied plan rolls back) for a mutation that runs up to 100 ordered operations.

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 description coverage is 100% and the nested operation schema already documents every field, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying confirmation_token to an exact preview-issued token and noting freshness invalidation, which is not visible in the schema's simple 'token returned by preview_edit_plan' note.

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?

States a specific verb (apply) plus resource (previously previewed compound edit), and its scoping rule (revalidate project/sequence/target identities before mutation) clearly distinguishes it from preview_edit_plan and the single-operation siblings like ripple_delete or remove_from_timeline. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear precondition context: it applies a plan that was already previewed, needs the exact preview confirmation token, and changed targets force a fresh preview. It implies but never names preview_edit_plan as the required upstream tool, so routing is inferable rather than explicit.

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