apply_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully explains the mutation semantics that justify that profile: 'Files are moved, never deleted.' That tells the agent the operation relocates rather than removes data, which is meaningful context beyond the hints. It still omits idempotency and partial-failure behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the key safety guarantee front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety profile are covered. For a mutating one-parameter tool, though, it neglects idempotency, error/partial-application behavior, and the undo sibling that governs recovery.

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?

A single plan_id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies the plan came from user approval but never says where plan_id originates (presumably a plan_tidy result) or its format.

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?

Specific verb (apply) plus resource (plan), and the qualifier 'the user has approved' scopes it to a post-review stage. It implicitly separates this from plan_tidy (which produces the plan), though it never names that sibling directly.

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 phrase 'a plan the user has approved' implies a prerequisite step and ordering, which is real if implicit guidance. It never states when not to use it, nor points to undo as the reversal path when the result is unwanted.

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