apply_update_to_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement and failure conditions, but does not explicitly state that this permanently mutates the graph or describe other side effects such as overwriting existing data.

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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. It contains no redundant information or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description gives minimal context for constructing structured_update_json, understanding diff semantics, or formatting actor_contact. For a complex mutation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional external knowledge.

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?

Only dry_run and confirm_token are explained in the description. The parameters diff, project_id, actor_contact, and structured_update_json are not described, and the schema has 0% description coverage, leaving their meaning and purpose unclear.

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 action 'Apply COBie updates to the canonical project graph' and clarifies it is not Excel. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like preview_update and import_cobie_to_graph.

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 explicit usage conditions: requires confirm_token='CONFIRM_APPLY' unless dry_run=True, and rejects when graph sync status is missing, stale, or error. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to prefer them over this one.

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