Apply proposed VisiMark rules

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context: the write is gated on the operator starting the server with --allow-write and the host declaring a root, and it is refused as stale if the document changed since the plan was computed. That is exactly the extra information an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the action and its source come first, then the input-shaping rule, then the two refusal conditions. Every clause carries 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?

For a two-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description covers provenance, input shaping, and both failure gates. It does not say what happens on success (e.g., counts of applied rules or partial-application behavior), a minor gap given no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the note that plan must be unedited apart from dropping rejected entries. The description restates the plan handling but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("Insert the vmark rules") plus the exact resource and its origin ("the rules visimark_infer proposed"), which separates it from the sibling visimark_infer that only proposes them. An agent can tell it is the write-side step of the infer/apply pair without opening the 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 required workflow (use the plan returned by visimark_infer, drop rejected entries) and the two refusal conditions (document changed, missing --allow-write/root). It does not contrast with visimark_fmt_apply, so the agent must infer which apply tool fits which artifact.

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