decomp_config_apply_changes

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the write-gating environment variable, which is genuinely useful auth-style context, but says nothing about what gets overwritten, whether a backup is made, whether the write is atomic, or what happens if the file is invalid.

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 with the action front-loaded and the precondition second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a write operation, but nothing qualifies as padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the verb, target, and gating env var, and the schema covers all parameters. It stops short of the things an agent most needs before writing: overwrite semantics, failure behavior, and how the 'approved proposal' relates to the propose/validate siblings.

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?

All four parameters are documented at 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain the relationship between address and symbolName or clarify the apply-confirmation flag beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('decompilation configuration file') plus the object of the write ('an approved modification proposal'), which separates it from decomp_config_inspect/validate/propose_changes by implying this is the commit stage. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring the 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?

The phrase 'approved modification proposal' implies the propose/validate steps must happen first, and the RETRACE_ALLOW_WRITE=1 line states a concrete precondition. However, no sibling is named as the required predecessor, and there is no guidance on when not to use it or what to do if the proposal is unapproved.

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