apply_vibe_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this creates exactly one new version, does not publish, can be undone via restore_lp_version using a returned previousVersionId, and returns a structured stale_session error instead of applying in a stale session. These are critical side-effects and error conditions not otherwise conveyed.

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 compact given its complexity: three sentences covering purpose, usage, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, the third sentence is quite long and dense, mixing stale_session handling with force=true and re-run advice, which takes extra parsing effort.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description covers the most vital aspects: the workflow (from vibe_edit_landing_page to publish), the undo mechanism, and the stale_session error path. It does not fully describe the success return payload (beyond previousVersionId) or other potential errors, but it addresses the most common and operationally critical behaviors.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes above that by explaining the mutual exclusivity of all/indices/paths and how to source indices/paths from get_vibe_edit_status. It also clarifies the meaning of force=true in the stale_session context, adding value beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, though it does not elaborate on every parameter like name/description.

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 starts with a specific verb and object: 'Applies a completed vibe edit... to the DRAFT as ONE new version.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by explicitly stating it does NOT publish (publish_landing_page) and can be undone (restore_lp_version), tying into the surrounding 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Pass exactly one of: all=true, indices, or paths' and clarifies how to obtain those subsets. It also provides alternative actions for the stale_session error (re-run vibe_edit_landing_page or retry with force=true), and explicitly says to call publish_landing_page next, leaving no ambiguity about the workflow.

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