apply_plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds valuable context: the fingerprint equality check and the check_drift default that refuses if values changed. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand the safety mechanism.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the most critical usage condition (user approval). The second paragraph adds necessary technical detail about fingerprint and drift without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (applying a plan with potential destructive effects) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably explains return values), the description covers the key prerequisites and safety checks. It does not explain what the plan application entails, but that is not required for correct invocation. The fingerprint and drift details are the critical missing pieces that are provided.

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 explains fingerprint (must equal the one returned when built/fetched) and check_drift (refuses if values changed). It does not explain plan_id, but that is self-explanatory from its name. The description adds meaning to two of three parameters, which is strong given the zero coverage.

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 clearly states the action: 'Apply a saved plan.' It specifies the verb and resource, and the context distinguishes it from siblings like list_plans, plan_create, and plan_update. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the precondition 'Only call after the user approved this exact plan,' which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also explains the fingerprint requirement and drift behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond the approval condition, so it misses the 'alternatives' aspect for a 5.

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