Apply an approved optimization to your live product to update public-facing copy. Use this action to publish the changes after review.
POST /api/v1/optimizations/{id}/application — applies an approved optimization to the live product. DESTRUCTIVE: changes the product's public-facing copy. EXPENSIVE: 10 req/min limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Optimization UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly states that the tool changes 'the product's public-facing copy' and adds a rate limit of '10 req/min'. This gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations that are not present in the annotations or schema.
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 front-load the endpoint and core action, then add the two critical operational constraints: destructive impact and rate limit. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 tool is simple, with one required parameter and no output schema. The description clearly explains what happens, what changes, and the rate limit, while annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.
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 100% for the single id parameter, documented as 'Optimization UUID'. The description adds only the implicit context that the id must refer to an approved optimization, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 ('applies'), a specific resource ('approved optimization'), and a clear target context ('live product'). This is distinct from sibling tools like approve, reject, or revert, so an agent can tell what this tool does immediately.
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 optimization' establishes the required precondition, and 'live product' signals that this is a production-impacting action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.