kb_apply_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses guarded vault writers, that raw/ is never written, that log.md is append-only, and that post-apply verification is returned. It does not cover permissions, atomicity, or error behavior, but the key mutation constraints are exposed.

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 three short sentences with no wasted language. The core action and post-condition are front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information. It is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains side-effect constraints, return values, and parameter shape reference. It still leaves usage timing and the full change object shape to inference from a sibling. That is a minor gap rather than a fundamental omission.

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% for the single required 'changes' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by saying the change shape matches kb_propose_changes, which gives an agent a reference point, but it does not define the shape itself. This is adequate but not self-contained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: committing a change set to disk, followed by re-verification. It distinguishes the operation from the sibling kb_propose_changes by contrasting commit/apply with propose. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 references kb_propose_changes for the change shape, which implies a relationship but stops short of explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not state conditions such as 'use after proposing changes' or exclusions for alternatives. Usage is implied rather than clearly instructed.

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