figure_library_apply_project_figures

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context: preserves stable IDs and historical revisions, moves directories without overwriting targets, and does not render panel letters or rewrite external absolute references. However, it doesn't address failure modes, lock behavior, or what happens if the digest mismatches.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its main guarantees, then the explicit exclusions. No filler.

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 no output schema, one param, and no annotations describing permissions or side effects beyond the destruction hints, the description covers the tool's guarantees and limits but omits the planDigest's purpose and any prerequisite workflow, leaving the call sequence 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required planDigest parameter, and the description provides no information about it—not even its role as a plan identifier against which the reviewed plan is matched. With zero schema documentation and no compensating text, the agent is left guessing.

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 verb+resource (apply a naming/grouping plan), but does not name the sibling it pairs with, figure_library_plan_project_figures, or distinguish itself from the many other *_apply_* tools. The purpose is vague enough that an agent must infer the plan/apply relationship.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the prerequisite (a reviewed plan from the plan tool) or the alternative plan tool. The description says the plan is 'reviewed', hinting at a prior step, but never states it.

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