willys_plan_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: only diffs are sent, dryRun defaults to true and shows changes without touching the cart, and setting dryRun=false modifies a real cart only after explicit approval. This is solid safety-critical information, though it doesn't mention potential side effects like item removal.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and then a critical safety detail. Every word adds value: the first sentence defines the operation, the second explains the dryRun default and mutation risk. No fluff.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: sync behavior, diff-only approach, and the dryRun safety valve. It could explain the return shape in dryRun more explicitly, but it states that changes are shown, which suffices for an agent to invoke it.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema; it references the diff logic but doesn't elaborate on parameters like acceptMatch or acceptSurplus. However, the schema already documents those well, so this is acceptable.

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 tool's function: 'Synka kundvagnen mot planen' (sync the cart against the plan), with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like willys_plan_status by emphasizing it sends only the difference, making its scope 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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to apply a plan to the cart, and it highlights the safe default of dryRun=true. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like willys_plan_status, the sync vs. status distinction is implied, and the guidance to use dryRun first (via default) is clear.

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