Apply a previewed change

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it discloses default dry-run behavior, config-based refusal of dry_run=false, two-phase apply constraints, Reddit's lack of validate-only mode, and the exact fields returned when a config override forces dry-run. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 long, but every section earns its place by explaining non-obvious behavior, config overrides, platform differences, and retry guidance. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly, and the rest is structured with clear paragraphs; a minor deduction only because the length is substantial and could be tightened.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers prerequisites, default behavior, failure modes, config interactions, platform special cases, and retry guidance, making it complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke this destructive tool.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains that plan_id comes from a prior draft_* or pause/enable call, and it thoroughly documents dry_run's default value and the exact semantics of setting it to false, including refusal conditions.

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 opens with 'Execute a previously previewed change,' which uses a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes this tool as the apply step after a preview. It also ties the input plan_id to prior draft_* or pause/enable calls, making the tool's role unambiguous among the sibling tools.

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 gives explicit and actionable usage guidance: dry_run defaults to true, dry_run=false is required for real changes, config overrides can force dry-run behavior, and two-phase apply requires a prior dry run. It also tells the agent to stop retrying and surface remediation fields when forced dry-run occurs.

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