apply_alignment

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: single-transaction semantics, recompute-and-measure checks, rollback on failure, no file save, and supported object types. It stops short of saying how results/failures surface (returned payload vs. thrown error), which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and constraint, then the behavioral detail grouped sensibly. Dense but every line carries information; minor fragmentation across short lines is the only cost.

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 mutating, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the critical agent questions: transaction scope, validation, rollback, persistence, and supported object types. The remaining gap is what the agent receives on success or check failure.

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% for the single plan_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by tying plan_id to a 'fresh' plan and warning against stale/reused ids, but never states the id format or its origin tool.

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 and resource ('Apply a fresh plan') plus the constraint that the plan must be fresh, which separates it from plan/preview tooling. It does not name the sibling tools (plan_alignment, preview_alignment) that produce those plans, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives concrete when-not conditions: refuses reused/stale plans and does not support App::Link or App::Part containers. It never explicitly routes the agent to preview_alignment or plan_alignment as the prerequisite step, leaving the workflow relationship to inference.

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