apply_project_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that channel operations edit .st files directly and cascade to .lcn files, while network operations run via a batch script. It also mentions the IDE is killed before changes. This is substantial behavioral context, though it could mention potential side effects like unsaved changes.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main function, detailing operation types, and noting the IDE behavior. No redundant information, and the structure leads with the core purpose.

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 the complexity of applying structural changes with potential for errors, the description lacks information about error handling, rollback behavior, or what the tool returns. Without an output schema, this gap affects completeness. However, it adequately describes the two operation pathways.

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?

Both parameters (lcp_path, operations) have schema descriptions, resulting in 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the distinction between channel and network operations within the operations parameter, which goes beyond the schema's description. It clarifies the functional categories and their effects.

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 that the tool applies structural changes to a LASAL CLASS 2 project, distinguishing between channel operations and network operations. The verb 'apply' combined with 'structural changes' and the specific resource (LASAL CLASS 2 project) makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like apply_visu_changes.

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 explains the two types of operations (channel vs. network) and their execution mechanisms, providing guidance on when each type is used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives among siblings, such as compile_project or write_class_source.

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