apply_standardization_plan

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key safety mechanism – default preview with an explicit confirm gate for the mutation – which is genuinely useful. It stops short of stating whether applying is irreversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur on work items, which matters for a write operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the critical guardrail. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the core preview/apply flow is explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations the description omits reversibility, required permissions, and how to source a plan_id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains confirm's role as a review gate, but plan_id gets no explanation of format or where to obtain it (e.g., from get_standardization_plan or create_standardization_plan), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 standardization plan. The dual mode (preview vs. apply) is explicit, and the word 'saved' implicitly separates it from create_standardization_plan and get_standardization_plan, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives a clear procedural condition: set confirm=true only after reviewing proposed actions, which effectively instructs the agent to run a preview pass first. It does not name get_standardization_plan as the way to obtain or review the plan, so a small inference remains.

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