tf_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation (applies) and details server-side verification of signature, expiry, single-use, plan checksum, and drift. This gives the agent important context about safety and failure conditions, though it does not describe the response format or exact effects on infrastructure.

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 with zero waste. The primary purpose is stated first, and the security requirements are added in a compact, informative second sentence.

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?

For a mutation tool with security prerequisites and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what it does, when it can be used (with valid approval), and what verifications occur. It is missing details on response/return value and any prerequisites like having a plan already generated, but given sibling tools and the absence of output schema, it is largely complete.

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 the purpose of approvalId and approvalToken (minted by human approval, verifies signature/expiry/etc.), but does not explain workspaceId at all. It adds some meaning but leaves a key parameter undocumented.

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 ('runs') and resource ('terraform apply'), and explicitly claims to be the only tool that does so, clearly distinguishing it from siblings. The approval requirement is also front-loaded.

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 makes clear that this is the tool to use when applying a Terraform plan, and its requirement for a valid approval token implies it should only be used after planning and approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives for planning (like tf_plan), but the 'only tool' phrasing provides explicit exclusion of other siblings for apply.

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