apply_task_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important safety condition (source files must still match the base) but says nothing about what is mutated, atomicity, partial application behavior, permission requirements, or failure modes.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness contributes to gaps covered under contextual completeness rather than conciseness itself.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters at 0% schema description coverage. A single sentence about the base-match guard is not enough to explain parameter meanings, partial application behavior, or what an agent should expect on success or failure.

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 explain all three parameters. It indirectly hints at expected_revision via 'match the base' and at task context via 'task changes,' but it never defines task_id or expected_revision explicitly and completely omits allow_partial.

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 and resource ('apply reviewed changes') and adds a clear guard condition ('if touched source files still match the base'). It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like discard_task_changes and get_task_changes, though it does not name those alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear precondition for use: changes must be reviewed and source files must still match the base. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as discard_task_changes when the base has changed.

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