Apply reviewed mailbox changes

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

The description discloses that the tool applies and verifies, adding value beyond annotations which already indicate destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent behavior. However, it does not detail what 'apply' changes, what happens to the plan (e.g., is it consumed or retained), or what 'verify' returns. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adds some but not rich behavioral 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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, and the primary action is front-loaded ('Apply one reviewed plan'). It efficiently conveys purpose without padding.

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?

The description is short and does not explain what 'apply' does in terms of side effects or what 'verify' produces. Given the destructive and openWorld hints, more context on consequences would be valuable. An output schema exists and may cover return values, but the description alone leaves gaps about the operational impact for an automation agent.

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 100% - plan_id is fully described as 'Triage plan ID returned by a planning tool.' The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any semantics beyond the schema, so it provides no additional value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'apply' with a specific resource 'reviewed plan' and adds 'verify each resulting mailbox state', which is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like triage_plan (which likely generates a plan) and triage_plan_delete (which deletes a plan). An agent can immediately infer the tool's core function without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'reviewed plan' implies the tool should be used after a plan has been created and reviewed, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or mention alternatives like triage_plan_delete. There is no explicit guidance about preconditions or which sibling to choose over another.

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