pbi_apply_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it verifies the project is in the planned state and rejects the plan if changed, preventing unintended changes. It also explains the optional expected_operation check and its failure mode (plan_operation_mismatch). This goes beyond a terse 'apply plan' and offers meaningful safety context.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the safety verification and optional parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (applying a plan, safety checks) and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, safety checks, and one parameter detail. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable. However, missing explanations for confirm and request_id slightly reduce completeness.

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. It only explains expected_operation, while plan_token, confirm, and request_id receive no semantic explanation. plan_token is implied by context, but confirm's behavior (e.g., what happens if false) and request_id's purpose are unclear. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves three under-documented.

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 verb and resource: 'Aplica un plan calculado con pbi_plan_change o con un dry_run' (Applies a plan calculated with pbi_plan_change or with a dry_run). It differentiates from sibling tools like pbi_plan_change (which creates the plan) and pbi_apply_audit_fixes by explicitly referencing the plan origin.

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?

Usage is implied: use this after generating a plan via pbi_plan_change or dry_run. The description also mentions a safety check (rejects plan if project state changed), providing context for when it's safe to apply. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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