pt_apply_feature

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false, leaving the description to disclose mutation behavior. It indicates that config is applied to a device and that dry_run returns lines without applying, but it does not state persistence, reversibility, permission needs, or failure behavior for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose, example, and dry_run behavior. The example is slightly verbose but earns its place by illustrating the params structure. No wasted words.

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 a mutating tool with 4 parameters, nested object, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should be more complete. It omits details about the device parameter, allowed feature values beyond a pointer, full params schema, and what applying actually returns or changes.

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 provides an example for feature and params and explains dry_run behavior, but it does not describe the device parameter or exhaustively explain the nested params object. Partial but useful compensation.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Generate IOS config for a feature ... and apply it to a device in one step.' It distinguishes from siblings by naming ios_features for feature discovery and by combining generation and application, which differentiates it from ios_generate. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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 description implies when to use it: to generate and apply config in one step, with a dry_run option for preview. It gives a concrete example but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or compare to alternatives like ios_generate + pt_cli. Clear context without exclusions.

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