Apply a VisiMark repair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety direction is covered. The description goes further, disclosing a staleness guard (refused if the document changed since the plan was computed), an operator precondition (--allow-write), and a host requirement (declared root) — meaningful behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, action front-loaded, with preconditions trailing. No filler; each clause either defines the operation or a condition that gates it.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the operation, the plan-sourcing dependency, and both environmental preconditions an agent must satisfy before calling. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% with two documented parameters, so the schema already carries the primary semantics. The description adds only indirect hints ('artifacts it named', dropping rejected entries), which is the expected baseline rather than extra value.

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?

Names specific verbs (splice, write) and resources (computed cells, anchors, generated artifacts), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling visimark_fmt as the plan producer. An agent can distinguish this apply step from the fmt planning step without opening either schema.

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?

States the exact upstream relationship ('Land the plan visimark_fmt returned') and the two refusal conditions (document changed since plan, missing --allow-write or host root), making clear when the call will fail rather than succeed. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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