Lifecycle Apply Change

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds meaningful detail: it writes back the registry sidecar, opens a new revision on the same part number for F3-preserving changes, allocates a new part number with a supersedes link for F3-breaking changes, and leaves the released item untouched. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: core behavior first, then parameter list, then return/error summary. The parenthetical domain reference '#141 C2' is jargon-heavy, but the rest earns its place and is not padded.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description explains side effects, success returns, and failure cases such as the item not being released or an F3-break lacking new_item. It is nearly complete; the only small gap is that extra_f3 semantics are delegated to sibling tools rather than defined inline.

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 carries full parameter documentation. It explains registry as the sidecar path written back on success, item as the released id, after as the proposed metadata object, new_item as the id for F3-breaking, and references sibling semantics for extra_f3/actor/note. All seven parameters are meaningfully 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 states a specific action ('Apply a change to a RELEASED item') and the exact resource/scope, with the distinctive F3 predicate dispatch. It is clearly distinguished from lifecycle_transition and lifecycle_classify_change by being 'the sanctioned way to change a frozen part.'

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 clearly scopes use to RELEASED/frozen items and explains when an F3-breaking change requires new_item. It references sibling tools for optional parameters, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer lifecycle_transition or classify_change instead. Context is clear, though exclusions are only implied.

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