onto_apply

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

The description discloses mode behaviors (clear+reload, monitor checks, bridge additions) but fails to mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existing plan), or error conditions. Without annotations, this coverage is moderate but has gaps.

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 extraneous information. The description is front-loaded with the action and immediately provides mode details, making it efficient and scannable.

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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers the tool's core functionality and modes. However, it omits mentions of dependencies (e.g., requires a plan created by onto_plan) and return behavior. Overall sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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?

The schema already covers the 'mode' parameter with descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context by explaining what each mode does operationally. This enriches the schema, moving above the baseline of 3.

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 tool applies the last plan and details three distinct modes ('safe', 'force', 'migrate') with specific behaviors. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on execution of a plan rather than creation or analysis.

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 explains the modes but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like onto_plan or onto_rollback. No explicit conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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