tidy_apply

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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: it is the only mutation tool, it refuses invalid plans, and on success it writes a decision entry. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of transparency, and it does so thoroughly.

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 succinct, with no redundant phrasing. It efficiently covers purpose, constraints, and side effects in three sentences, each contributing new information without fluff.

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?

It covers the tool's role, preconditions (plan from tidy_plan, valid hash), failure conditions (invalid, expired, changed targets), and postcondition (decision entry). Given the simplicity of the operation and lack of output schema, this is 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?

While the schema already describes each parameter, the tool description adds meaningful context: planHash is identified as coming from tidy_plan, confirm is framed as a deliberate second step, and note is implied to record reasoning. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: executing a plan identified by hash. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the only tool that changes anything in tidy-core, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: it only executes plans generated by tidy_plan, and refuses expired plans or those with changed targets. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use it, and implicitly directs users to generate plans via tidy_plan first.

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