roslyn:apply_code_action_by_title

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses zero-based coordinates and preview mode behavior but omits details on safety (e.g., is the change reversible, permissions required). The added value is moderate.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, WORKFLOW, IMPORTANT) and is concise. No unnecessary sentences, though minor reorganization could improve front-loading.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers workflow, coordinate system, preview mode, and title matching. It lacks details on error handling but is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds context: 'Supports exact and partial matching' for title, and reinforces zero-based coordinates and preview mode usage, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 'Apply a code action by its title' and mentions exact and partial matching. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool apply_code_fix, but the purpose is clear.

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?

Provides a multi-step workflow: call get_code_actions first, then apply with preview=true, then apply with preview=false. This gives explicit context on when and how to use the tool, though alternatives are not discussed.

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