setup_apply

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

The description discloses the exact mutation surface: creating resources, ingesting a document, and running a smoke-test search, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. It does not state behavior on rerun or failure (e.g., whether resources already exist), but for a created resources this is a minor gap rather than a contradiction.

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 sentences with no filler: the first lists the action plan, the second gives an unambiguous usage precondition. Every clause contributes to correct invocation, and the description is front-loaded with the operational effect.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it already covers what the plan does and when to run it. It could be more explicit about what identifies the session in parameters, but the description provides the key context an agent needs to avoid mis-use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never explicitly documents the 'session_id' parameter semantics. However, the mention of 'setup_answer' and 'session is complete' strongly implies session_id identifies the in-progress setup wizard, providing enough inference for a single self-descriptive parameter.

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 ('Executes'), a specific resource ('fully agreed wizard plan'), and enumerates the concrete side effects: creates collection, indexes, profile, ingests an example document, and runs a smoke-test search. This clearly distinguishes setup_apply from sibling tools like setup_start and setup_answer by positioning it as the final plan-execution step.

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 gives explicit conditional usage: 'Use this only after setup_answer has returned all 8 questions answered — never before the session is complete.' It names the prerequisite sibling and provides an exclusion condition, leaving no ambiguity about when the tool should be called.

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