apply_change_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the approval requirement and the server's inability to approve, but it omits what applying actually does (e.g., side effects, reversibility, return value). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the critical precondition. No filler or redundant information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is too thin. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error conditions, and the precise effect of applying a proposal. It also doesn't explicitly direct the agent to validate first, though 'successfully validated' implies it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain proposal_id at all—no guidance on how to obtain it, what it refers to, or any constraints beyond the schema's format. The description adds no semantic value for the parameter.

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 states the action ('apply') on a specific resource ('change proposal') and includes a critical precondition (approval receipt). It distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_change_proposal and create_change_proposal by the action and the approval condition.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('only after an external human-controlled surface has attached an explicit approval receipt') and clarifies that the server cannot approve, guiding the agent to obtain approval elsewhere. It also implies that validation must have succeeded, effectively routing the agent to validate_change_proposal first.

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