Apply approved setup plan

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

Goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing transactional execution, preservation of user-owned files, and backup of managed updates. That materially changes how an agent should reason about risk; it stops short of explaining failure/rollback 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 tight sentences with the destructive/prerequisite context front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description does cover safety behavior for a destructive mutation. The gap is input-side: two of four required, deeply nested parameters are unexplained for a tool operating on a manifest structure.

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% with four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains plan_id and the consent flag but says nothing about 'root' or 'manifest', leaving half the input unexplained.

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 (apply) and resource (setup plan) with a key constraint ('unchanged'), which separates it from plan_setup and inspect_setup in the sibling list. The title reinforces this, but no sibling is named 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?

Prerequisites (exact plan ID, explicit consent) are stated, which implies this runs after a plan is produced, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to plan_setup for the unplanned case.

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