tuning_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that apply creates a backup in /root/edge-tuning-backup-* and that rollback restores the latest or a given backupDir, but it omits important safety context such as required privileges, potential disruption, or dry-run/planHash workflow details that are only present in the schema.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the operation and resource, then add backup semantics without repetition or filler. Every clause contributes useful 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?

For an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core actions and backup behavior but leaves gaps around prerequisites, safety, and when to use it versus tuning_status. The schema handles parameter detail, but the overall definition is only minimally complete.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds some meaning for op and backupDir, but it does not clarify the remaining parameters such as target syntax, batch behavior, or continueOnError beyond what the schema provides.

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 pair (apply/roll back) and resource (kernel/network tuning of vps-network-tuning-script), plus the concrete tuning areas (BBR+fq, conntrack, NOFILE, swap, journald). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tuning_status, which would report rather than apply 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 implies when to use each operation (apply versus rollback) and notes that rollback can target the latest backup or a specified backupDir. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent to tuning_status for inspection before applying.

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