Approve TNL diff

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral context: it performs writes (writing tnl files), modifies sidecars, and removes the staging record. It does not mention any rollback or error handling. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description adds moderate additional context beyond 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 a single, well-structured sentence that lists the three precise actions (write, regenerate, remove) without any fluff. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, annotations are rich (destructive, idempotent), and no output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. It explains the three steps, which covers the essential behavior. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the return value (if any) or a success/failure indicator, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 100% (the single parameter diff_id has a description: 'The diff_id returned by propose_tnl_diff.'). The tool description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Apply', 'write', 'regenerate', 'remove') and a clear resource ('staged proposal', 'tnl/<id>.tnl files'). It distinctly describes the tool's action (applying a staged proposal) and the three concrete steps, which differentiates it from siblings like propose_tnl_diff (which stages a proposal) and verify (which checks without applying).

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 implies when to use this tool: after propose_tnl_diff returns a diff_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tools get_impacted_tnls, propose_tnl_diff, retrieve_tnl, trace, and verify provide context for alternatives. A clear 'when to use' is present, but no 'when not to use' or explicit alternative naming.

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