apply_hardening_plan

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that it backs up, validates, and collects evidence afterwards — which materially affects an agent's risk assessment and expectation of recoverability.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and follows with preconditions and side effects. No filler, though the 'collects after evidence' phrasing is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a destructive mutation tool the description supplies prerequisites, side effects (backup, validation, evidence collection), and hints of recoverability, leaving only the plan_id contract underspecified.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema documents nothing beyond the name. The description implies the plan reference via 'reviewed, sealed plan' but gives no format, provenance, or validity requirements for plan_id. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Apply ... plan to its registered target') and constrains it to a 'reviewed, sealed' plan, which implicitly separates it from create_hardening_plan and rollback_hardening_plan. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Apply a reviewed, sealed plan' implies a plan must first be created and reviewed, and the description adds two concrete preconditions (local write opt-ins, root access). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as rollback_hardening_plan if the application fails.

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