apply_operation_parameter_preview

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds a non-obvious behavior: stale state is rejected. It also implies an authorization requirement via the approval token. No contradiction with annotations.

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 filler. The action, token requirement, and stale-state guard are all communicated efficiently.

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?

The core apply action, token requirement, and stale-state guard are covered, and the output schema handles return-value details. The main gap is the unexplained idempotencyKey, which matters for retry semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains approvalToken's role as the token from a previewed change, but it says nothing about the optional idempotencyKey, leaving its purpose entirely to inference.

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 states a specific action ('Apply'), a specific resource ('previewed change'), and the required credential ('approval token'). It also distinguishes the tool from preview-oriented siblings by framing it as the application step.

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?

'Using its approval token' clearly establishes the prerequisite: the tool is used after a preview has produced a token. 'Refuses stale state' gives a condition for failure, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as preview_operation_parameters or rollback_change.

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