confirm_and_apply

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral details: dry_run defaults to true, must explicitly set false to apply, and a config setting ('safety.require_dry_run') can override and force dry_run. It also documents response fields like 'dry_run_forced_by', 'config_path', and 'remediation'.

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 well-structured: a concise one-line summary, followed by an IMPORTANT block for the dry_run behavior, then a clear explanation of the config override scenario. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (applying changes with a safety mechanism), the description covers the core workflow, the dry_run default, the config override, and the appropriate user response. An output schema exists, so return values are documented separately. The description is complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'dry_run' parameter (default true, must be false to apply) and the 'plan_id' parameter (comes from prior draft_*/pause/enable calls). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not provide a specific format or examples for plan_id.

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 tool 'Execute a previously previewed change', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling draft_* tools by mentioning that 'plan_id comes from a prior draft_* or pause/enable tool call', indicating this applies those previews.

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 explicitly says to use this tool after a preview to apply changes, and provides a detailed warning about the dry_run default and config override that can prevent actual changes. It also instructs what to do when the config forces dry_run: stop retrying and surface the remediation fields.

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