lifecycle_apply_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this mutates state, exactly what each branch does (new rev on same part vs. new part number with supersedes back-link), that the released item is left untouched on an F3-break, and two concrete failure modes. It omits permission/auth requirements and concurrency/locking behavior, which for a mutation tool remains a gap.

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?

Dense but well-structured: the core F3 dispatch is front-loaded, followed by per-parameter notes and return shape. Slightly verbose in the branch explanation, but almost every sentence carries actionable information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is unusually complete – it documents the mutation semantics, both outcome branches, the return object, and failure cases. What remains thin is the exact meaning of the F3 predicate and the contents of `after`.

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 and largely does: registry, item, after, new_item, and the extra_f3/actor/note group are each explained, including the conditional requirement on new_item. The `after` object is only glossed as 'proposed new metadata', leaving its expected keys unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('apply a change to a RELEASED item') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling lifecycle tools by describing the F3 dispatch. An agent can tell it apart from lifecycle_classify_change and lifecycle_transition.

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?

Frames itself as 'the sanctioned way to change a frozen part' and describes the two branches that determine the outcome, which is strong context. It references lifecycle_classify_change/lifecycle_transition for optional params but never states an explicit when-not-to-use or a precondition checklist.

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