apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this mutates the phone, that it backs up first, that it verifies afterward, and that it requires a token from the latest diff. It does not state reversibility beyond 'backs up' or note failure modes, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, action first, prerequisite and safety behavior after. Zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; what remains — the mutation's effect, its prerequisite, and its backup/verify safety net — is all present for a single-parameter commit 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning for apply_token — it does, stating the token must come from the latest diff, which is a real precondition the schema does not express. No format or expiry details are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write the draft to the iPhone'), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like diff, render_preview, and reset_draft — those inspect or discard, this one commits.

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?

Gives a hard gating condition ('Only call when the user explicitly asked to apply this draft'), which is a clear when/when-not rule. It stops short of naming alternate tools, but the exclusion is strong enough that misuse is unlikely.

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