Apply Strategy Changes

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what gets replaced ('the entire managed target strategy directory') and the safety step taken ('after rechecking every preimage hash'). It also communicates a prerequisite ('trusted local CLI approval record') that is 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?

The description is extremely compact: two short sentences that front-load the core constraint and then state the destructive behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler 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?

The description covers the destructive behavior and a prerequisite, but for a 4-required-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, it leaves the agent without enough information to construct valid arguments. It does not reference sibling tools like prepare_strategy_changes that likely produce the required IDs, and it does not explain how idempotency_key or change_token should be obtained.

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% and the description provides no explanation of any of the four required parameters (change_set_id, change_token, approval_id, idempotency_key). The parameter names are self-descriptive at a surface level, but the description adds nothing about their origin, format, or relationship to other tools.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Apply') and the resource ('strategy changes'), and adds an important scope constraint: 'only an exact change with a trusted local CLI approval record.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like apply_strategy_repair or prepare_strategy_changes, so the differentiation is implied rather than named.

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 'Apply only an exact change with a trusted local CLI approval record' gives clear context about when this tool is appropriate: for exact, pre-approved changes only. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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