gia_apply_pack

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds critical context: mandatory gate approval, what-you-approved-is-what-ran binding, preflight checks for hardening packs, and rejection of other pack types. Does not disclose on-failure behavior but sufficiently transparent.

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 concise sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose+gate, prerequisite+alternatives, preflight+classification. No waste.

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?

Covers workflow context (dry-run binding, pack type restrictions, mandatory approval) and preflight checks, but does not describe return values or post-execution state. Acceptable given no output schema and destructive nature.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so description adds minimal new param detail beyond reinforcing the inputs_hash binding. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 executes remediation or hardening packs, explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like gia_run_patrol by rejecting patrol/audit packs, and ties to gia_dry_run_pack for input binding.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (remediation/hardening packs with mandatory approval), when-not-to-use (patrol/audit packs with alternative), and prerequisite (inputsHash from dry run).

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