apply_client_qos_policy

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

While annotations only mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds that in the current release no controller mutation is performed, mutation_attempted=false, the call records the attempt, and success=false unless confirm=true. This goes well beyond the structured annotation and prevents an agent from expecting a real activation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and confirmation requirement, then expands on behavior and parameters. Minor redundancy exists between 'Requires confirmation' and the confirm parameter rationale, but nothing is excessive.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral caveats, the prerequisite workflow, and the parameter semantics. It could specify the full response contract, but it already gives the key success/mutation flags and current-release 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args entries simply restate the schema text for plan_token and confirm without adding extra semantics. The schema already carries the parameter meanings, so the description adds no value beyond a baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply'), resource ('validated QoS preview'), and a clear condition ('when a supported adapter exists'). It also names the prerequisite sibling tool plan_client_qos_policy, which distinguishes it from the planning step.

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 explicitly instructs agents to call plan_client_qos_policy first to obtain a plan_token and requires confirmation before any effect. It does not enumerate all when-not-to-use cases, but the no-op behavior without confirm=true and the current no-adapter caveat provide clear context.

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