nexus_apply_change

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

With no annotations, the description discloses some behavioral traits: it requires a user-controlled approval code and has an additional server-side gate for disruptive actions. However, it does not explain what happens after applying, reversibility, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 short sentences, purpose first, with no redundant wording. Every sentence contributes unique value: function, prerequisite, and safety gate.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: it is the apply step, needs server-side enablement, an approval code, and an extra gate for disruptive actions. It omits details like return values and exact failure modes, but is sufficiently complete for basic usage.

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for change_id and approval_code. It mentions the approval code but repeats rather than extends the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Apply' with a clear resource ('previously previewed change'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like nexus_read and nexus_prepare_change. It conveys that this is the execution step in a prepare/apply workflow.

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?

It clearly states prerequisites ('previously previewed change') and actionable requirements (server-side write enablement, approval code, additional gate for disruptive actions), implying it should follow nexus_prepare_change. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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