apply_git_backfill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses idempotency and resume-after-error, that committed work is completed with a commit comment while uncommitted work is only started, and the non-obvious quirk that Plane sets completed_at to call time while real dates live in start_date/target_date/comment. Missing only auth/permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core action and preview/apply distinction, then layers behavioral detail. Sentences are dense but each conveys a non-obvious fact; 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the timing/idempotency quirks are covered. Still, for a 7-param mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 14% schema documentation, gaps around dry_run behavior and allow_create_modules leave an agent under-informed.

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 14%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains titles and modules overriding proposed values by item id and skip excluding items, but leaves dry_run's full semantics implicit and says nothing about allow_create_modules. Partial compensation for a low-coverage 7-param 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?

States a specific verb and resource — preview or apply a saved git backfill plan — and enumerates the actions (create, start, complete with a commit-citing record). The word 'saved' implicitly distinguishes it from plan_git_backfill, which produces the plan, but it does not name that sibling 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?

Distinguishes preview vs apply via the dry_run default and notes that re-running resumes without duplicates, so the operator knows it is safe to retry. However, it never states the prerequisite (a plan_id from plan_git_backfill) or contrasts itself with apply_standardization_plan, leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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