glm_5_approve_and_apply_changes

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

Discloses creation of rollback checkpoint and audit entry, plus that commands are not executed. However, no annotations exist, and it does not specify destructive potential, required permissions, or behavior on invalid proposals.

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?

Two concise sentences covering the main action and key side effects. No redundant information.

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 no output schema and two simple UUID parameters, the description covers the primary behavior. However, lacks details on error handling, return values, or preconditions, making it moderately complete.

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 0% description coverage. Parameter names (proposalId, approvalId) are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional context about expected formats, constraints, or relationships between them.

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 approved proposal changes, creates rollback checkpoint, and records audit. It distinguishes from siblings like apply_approved_patch by mentioning 'commands are not executed', but could be more specific about the difference.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like glm_5_apply_approved_patch. The description implies usage for applying approved changes but lacks when-not or alternative scenarios.

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