apply_silkscreen_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states that dry_run=true 'previews without writing' and that dry_run=false commits, implying mutating behavior. It also discloses the safety requirement of passing expected_sha256 after preview, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the critical safety workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description provides the essential workflow (dry-run then commit with hash) and references the stored plan. It could benefit from clarifying txid and how it relates to transaction siblings, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in the primary use case.

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 dry_run and expected_sha256 meaningfully, but plan_id is only implied by 'stored silkscreen plan' and txid is not explained at all. This is partial compensation for a 4-parameter schema.

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 states a specific action ('Stage or commit a stored silkscreen plan') on a clear resource, and distinguishes it from sibling planning tools by emphasizing the transaction and dry-run/commit workflow. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives a clear usage workflow: start with dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false and provide expected_sha256 after inspecting the preview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is strong enough to guide correct invocation.

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