wp_apply_terrain_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important side effects: a snapshot is taken first and output is saved to a new copy by default. However, it does not explain what happens when overwrite_original is enabled, what permissions are required, or any failure behavior, leaving the destructive path undocumented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the action and following with the safety-relevant defaults. It is efficient, though quite terse for a tool with this much undisclosed parameter surface.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema caveat beyond the output schema existing, the description is thin. Return values need not be explained, but the input parameters and the overwrite/destructive path are effectively undocumented.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at the default behavior behind overwrite_original/output_path ('save a new copy by default') but says nothing about plan_id, preview_id, output_path, or allow_overwrite_output semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Apply an already previewed plan via WorldPainter') and adds two behavioral qualifiers (snapshot first, save a new copy). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the preview sibling by requiring an 'already previewed' plan, though it never names wp_preview_terrain_edit or wp_plan_terrain_edit directly.

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?

'Apply an already previewed plan' establishes a clear prerequisite ordering relative to wp_preview_terrain_edit, and 'save a new copy by default' signals the default execution mode. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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