project_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers meaningful traits: atomicity, idempotent retries via request_id, and pre-commit plugin state capture. These go well beyond what an agent would assume about a generic 'apply' tool. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't disclose what happens on a base_revision conflict or whether the operation is reversibile, which are material for a concurrency-aware write tool.

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?

Three sentences, roughly 30 words, with purpose front-loaded and each sentence earning its place: atomic apply semantics, idempotency guidance, and state-capture behavior. There is no filler, no restatement of schema fields, and no redundant qualification. Appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool — 4 required parameters, 16 operation variants in a oneOf, no output schema, and no annotations — so the description has a large job. It covers the critical invocation semantics (atomicity, unique request_id, retry safety) that an agent needs to call it correctly. Clear gaps remain: the behavior on base_revision mismatch, the response/return value, and how to discover the current revision to pass. Adequate but visibly incomplete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: request_id gains real meaning ('identical retries are safe') and base_revision gains context ('apply at base_revision'). However, operations is only glossed as 'concrete musical edits' despite being the tool's core payload, and project_id receives no semantic support. The description meaningfully explains the two non-obvious params but leaves the most complex one underserved.

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 and resource: 'Atomically apply concrete musical edits at base_revision.' The term 'musical edits' plus the tool name clearly distances it from read/probe siblings like project_inspect, and from create/import/restore tools that build or replace projects rather than editing. It loses the fifth point because it doesn't explicitly name or exclude any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary against related mutation tools like project_restore or project_import.

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 guidance is given on when to select this tool versus alternatives such as project_create, project_import, or project_validate. The unique-request_id advice and retry-safety note are invocation hygiene, not selection criteria. There is no mention of when not to use it, no stated prerequisites (e.g., an existing project, a known base_revision), and no named alternative tool.

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