Execute TD Brain Plan

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

Annotations already disclose destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds context about transactional apply, validation, rollback, optional learning, and bounded auto-repair via repair_budget. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral details beyond structured fields.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads purpose and key behaviors; the second provides critical usage guidance against alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers core use case, alternative tools, transactionality, validation, rollback, learning, repair budget, and plan_id optimization. Minor gap: does not clarify behavior when both plan and plan_id are omitted (though schema defaults handle it). Overall, it is very complete for a complex tool with 6 parameters and existing schema descriptions.

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% with descriptive param descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the rationale for plan_id (avoiding echoing large plans back) and implicitly covering repair_budget and learn_on_success through 'optional local learning' and 'bounded auto-repair attempts'.

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 explicitly states the tool as 'DEFAULT apply path for a BrainPlan' and describes it as applying transactionally with validation, rollback, and learning. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like td_transaction_apply and the legacy pipeline.

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?

Provides clear guidance: use when you have a BrainPlan from td_brain_plan or draft from td_brain_propose. Explicitly states when to prefer the alternative td_transaction_apply (for raw controls without grounding/learning) and warns not to use legacy td_plan_patch pipeline.

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