apply_expose

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: convergence, automatic revocation, and tables being dark by default. Missing details on authorization requirements and side effects beyond manifest items.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the function returns (e.g., success status, error messages). Also missing prerequisites and error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed about post-invocation behavior.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed property descriptions. The description adds high-level context about convergence and defaults beyond the schema, but for parameter semantics, the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 applies a declarative authorization manifest to a project, detailing what the manifest contains. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_expose' and 'validate_manifest' implicitly by its action, but does not explicitly differentiate them.

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?

It explains convergence (applying twice is a no-op) and that dropped items are revoked, guiding the user on idempotent usage. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives like 'validate_manifest' for pre-validation.

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