Automation: acquire and apply

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that it may install content or run steps, that step approvals are required for destructive steps, and that secrets resolve only from env/vault. It stops short of describing rollback or what a failed partial apply leaves behind.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the state-changing warning before the prerequisite and return-value notes. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 dual-action, destructive, 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation risk, approval prerequisite, secret sourcing, and what is returned (execution receipt or acquisition action). The dry_run behavior and error/partial-failure semantics are left to the schema and annotations.

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 per-action parameter mapping already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest meaning ('step approvals' relate to the approvals array, 'secrets only from env/vault' implies non-secret inputs) but never mentions dry_run, workdir, or the action enum's two modes.

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 two concrete verb+resource pairs (acquire a Bay item, apply an installed Block) end-to-end, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling navig_automation. The '"Harbor Bay item' / 'Block' vocabulary is domain-specific but consistent with sibling tool names, so an agent can still route correctly.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule ('Use navig_automation to inspect first') and states the precondition that a Block must be installed with step approvals. It does not spell out when NOT to apply a block (e.g. against an unapproved or uninstalled target), so it stops short of full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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