apply

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure. It explains the verify mechanism (measures before/after, keeps moves only if objective improves without certain costs, otherwise reverts), the async job execution, and the dry_run behavior. This is comprehensive and goes beyond a simple mutation, covering rollback and polling requirements.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the critical behavioral details (verify, dry_run, job polling) are packed efficiently. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 of the operation (mutation with verification, rollback, async job), the description is complete. It tells the agent it needs a proposal_id, explains the two boolean parameters, and tells it to poll job(job_id). An output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains verify (default behavior) and dry_run (only runs policy filter), and the proposal_id is self-explanatory from context. It does not explicitly define proposal_id but its role is obvious from the description's first sentence, so most parameters are effectively covered.

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 states the verb 'Write' and the resource 'a proposal to Live', which is specific and distinct from most siblings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to differentiate itself, but the action is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining it applies a proposal and runs as a job, instructing the agent to poll the job. It also explains dry_run's purpose, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like verify, job, or undo. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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