apply_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a write/mutation operation ('apply') but doesn't disclose what the plan application does, whether it's reversible, what side effects occur, or what happens with warnings. The acknowledge_warnings parameter hints at potential destructive or risky behavior, but the description doesn't explain this. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two short phrases. It front-loads the core action and the critical consent requirement. However, it's so brief that it sacrifices necessary behavioral detail. Still, for what it does say, it's efficient and well-structured.

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 has an output schema and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the plan application process, the role of acknowledge_warnings, what the output represents, or any side effects. The consent requirement is useful but insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool, especially since it appears to be a write operation with potential warnings.

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 doesn't explain what plan_id refers to or what acknowledge_warnings does. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The acknowledge_warnings parameter especially needs explanation (what warnings? why acknowledge?).

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 'Применить план' (Apply the plan) clearly identifies the action: executing a previously created plan. It distinguishes itself from siblings like plan_write (which creates the plan) and run_read (which performs read operations). However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating itself.

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 states a critical usage condition: 'Только после согласия пользователя' (Only after user consent). This is explicit guidance on when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the consent requirement is a strong contextual signal that this is a confirmation step after planning.

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