Juno Changes Apply

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior with possible side effects. The description adds context about optional snapshot and hash verification, which are behavioral details beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the openWorldHint side effects.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and key optional features, earning every word's place.

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 tool with 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description concisely covers the essential action and optional behaviors. It is adequate but could mention that the change ID must refer to a previously submitted change.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'its ID' and optional snapshot/hash, which repeats schema info without adding new meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 action ('Apply a submitted change by its ID') and distinguishes from siblings like juno_changes_list (list) and juno_changes_reject (reject). It also highlights optional behaviors (snapshot, hash verification), making the specific resource and verb unambiguous.

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 context for use is clear—apply a submitted change—but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternative tools. The description implies usage for applying changes but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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