apply_changes

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description's mention of 'Execute' aligns. Additionally, it reveals that edits are wrapped in Undo_BeginBlock/EndBlock for single undo, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail side effects like project state changes or necessary permissions.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first covers the main action and undo behavior, the second provides a critical usage instruction. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool has one parameter with a complex nested schema and an output schema exists, the description provides a clear purpose and a key behavioral note (undo grouping). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., requirement of a prior approved plan) or return value details, but remains largely complete for its complexity.

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?

The single parameter 'plan' is fully detailed in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by instructing to 'Pass back the exact plan the user approved — do not re-derive it', clarifying it must be the output of recommend_changes, not a newly generated plan.

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 an approved EditPlan, listing specific symbolic edits it performs. It distinguishes from siblings like recommend_changes by explicitly saying 'do not re-derive it here', establishing it as the execution step after approval.

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 implies this tool is used after a plan is approved by saying 'pass back the exact plan the user approved — do not re-derive it'. This differentiates from recommend_changes, but does not explicitly state the workflow or list alternatives, leaving room for clearer usage guidance.

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