mt_apply_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain critical aspects: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, what happens when changes are applied (e.g., overwriting data, triggering side effects), or any rate limits. The mention of 'dryRun' in the schema hints at a potentially destructive action, but the description doesn't address this.

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 a single, vague sentence that under-specifies rather than being concise. It lacks front-loaded clarity and fails to convey essential details efficiently, making it unhelpful despite its brevity.

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 complexity implied by applying changes (likely a mutation) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'MT' is, what transformations are, the impact of the operation, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective 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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'dryRun' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 '変換結果をMTに適用します' (Applies transformation results to MT) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'mt_apply_changes' without providing meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'MT' refers to (likely a system or database), what kind of changes are being applied, or how this differs from sibling tools like mt_set_transform or mt_set_bulk_transform.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a transformation to be generated first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like mt_set_transform or mt_generate_diff_report, leaving the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.

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