whodb_platform_workflow_apply

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the confirmation-request framing and the fact that completed steps are skipped on retry (partial resumability). It does not quantify blast radius or reversibility, but it adds real value on top of the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its confirmation gate, then resumability, then per-call targeting. Nothing is padded, though the workspace sentence largely duplicates schema content.

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, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining essentials: what it does, that it is confirmation-gated, that retries skip completed steps, and how workspace targeting scopes a call. Complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and both parameters (plan_id and the nested workspace) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the workspace {host, org, project} targeting and the 'without changing defaults' behavior, which is already conveyed by the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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?

States a specific compound verb (apply or resume) and a precise resource (hosted WhoDB workflow plan), and the confirmation-gating is called out. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as whodb_platform_workflow_plan or whodb_platform_confirm, so an agent must infer the relationship, but the action is otherwise unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage context: apply a plan produced earlier, or resume an interrupted one ('completed steps are skipped on retry'). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from the sibling whodb_platform_confirm or why a separate confirmation step exists, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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