Apply an approved change set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about checking revision, evidence, and dependency pins, and mentions persisting safety metadata. No contradictions; the description supplements the annotations well.

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 dense with specific change types, which is informative, but slightly verbose. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, making it efficient despite length.

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 tool complexity, the description enumerates all supported change types and the validation checks. Output schema exists (not shown), so return details are covered. The description fully captures the tool's scope and requirements.

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 has 2 parameters: changeSetId (pattern only) and expectedRevision (pattern + description). The description adds context that the revision must be 'approved' and from a preview, but does not explain the patterns or provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema gives. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 explicitly lists many types of changes this tool applies (e.g., map edit, tileset edit, file deletion, checkpoint restore), and clearly states it applies a previously previewed change set after validation. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling preview 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?

The description implies usage after a preview operation (e.g., 'previously previewed'), and the sibling tools are predominantly preview operations, making the tool's role clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for similar actions.

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