apply_schematic_placement_repair_plan

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavior: transactional staging/committing, non-destructive preview via dry_run, and checksum verification on commit. This goes beyond simply 'apply the plan' and informs the agent of safety mechanisms.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds essential safety guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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 essential workflow and safety mechanism for applying a plan, and an output schema exists for return values. Missing some context around txid usage, but overall adequate for this complexity.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly explains dry_run and expected_sha256 but leaves plan_id and txid implicit. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

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 specifies the exact action ('Stage or commit') and resource ('stored schematic placement-repair plan'), clearly distinguishing it from planning siblings like plan_schematic_placement_repair. The dry_run semantics further clarify the two operational modes.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: use dry_run=true to preview, and only set dry_run=false after inspecting the preview and providing expected_sha256. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar apply tools like apply_component_placement_plan.

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