apply_edit_plan_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does volunteer one real behavioral trait: applied entries 'undergo fresh cut assessment', implying the tool does not blindly apply the list. However it says nothing about whether this mutates the project destructively, whether it is reversible, or what permissions/state it requires, which is a significant gap for an apply-style mutation 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?

A single compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of ambiguity, but it wastes no 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves the core semantics underspecified: no usage routing among many sibling edit tools, no explanation of 3 of 4 parameters, and no mutation/reversibility context despite zero annotation coverage.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'edit-plan list' loosely maps to the edits array, and 'fresh cut assessment' loosely gestures at review_required, but project_path and use_inaudible_opt are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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?

Names a verb ('Stage cuts') and a resource ('edit-plan list'), but the verb is ambiguous — 'stage' usually means to queue rather than to apply, which sits oddly with the name apply_edit_plan_tool. It does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as apply_edits or apply_suggested_actions_tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of apply_edits, approve_edits, apply_suggested_actions_tool, or reject_edits_tool, all of which operate on the same edit-approval pipeline. No prerequisites or ordering guidance is given.

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