Apply outline state

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by resolving their apparent tension: it explains why a tool that mutates stored display state counts as read-only (no undo step, no task/assignment/date changes) and warns that the outline state persists with the project and a later save writes it along. It also flags non-repeatability of step_expand/step_collapse due to view-dependent state, matching idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the core effect in the first sentence before the exclusivity rule and the behavioral caveats. It is dense and slightly long, and the 'that is why this tool counts as read-only' clause retreads the readOnlyHint, but each sentence carries actionable information.

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 two-parameter, oneOf-constrained tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the exclusivity rule, the failure mode on wrong views, the persistence side effect, and a pointer to the analogous get tool for the response shape.

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% and the schema already documents the enum values and exclusivity, so baseline is 3. The description adds the rationale the schema lacks: openRows exists specifically to replay a state read beforehand when rows were opened by hand, and the two step values move one step rather than to an absolute state.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('expands or collapses the visible resource or capacity view') and grounds it in a concrete UI analogue ('the same effect as the expand and collapse buttons of the ribbon'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming rillsoft_view_state_apply as the tool for other views, and 'answers like rillsoft_outline_get' ties it to its read counterpart.

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?

Explicit mutual exclusion ('Give exactly one of outline and openRows') plus the condition that selects openRows over outline ('restores a state read before, row by row, which outline alone cannot do'). It also names the fallback tool and the failure condition ('In any other view the call fails and points at rillsoft_view_state_apply'), leaving nothing to inference.

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