mutations_apply_mutation_plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It adds the requirement of interactive approval and exactly one plan, which are useful safety constraints, but does not disclose what happens to the plan after application (e.g., whether it is consumed) or any rollback possibilities.

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?

One sentence with no fluff, every word adds value: 'Apply exactly one' sets scope, 'previously previewed' sets precondition, 'after interactive approval' sets workflow. Description is front-loaded with the core action.

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 low parameter count, presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and constraints. It could clarify the exact nature of 'interactive approval' (e.g., whether it blocks or expires), but this is minor because the workflow is implied by sibling tools.

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?

The schema describes parameters as plan_id and plan_hash (both required strings) but has 0% description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter or explain the meaning or relationship (e.g., why hash is needed, how to obtain them). The tool name implies they identify a plan, but no additional semantics are provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Apply'), the resource ('mutation plan'), and specific constraints (exactly one, previously previewed, after interactive approval). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mutations_get_mutation_plan (retrieving) and mutations_cancel_mutation_plan (canceling).

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 phrase 'after interactive approval' and 'previously previewed plan' clearly indicates when this tool should be used: only after preview and approval. It implies the workflow but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though sibling tools make it obvious.

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