apply_mto_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It explains that the diff is always re-derived, that corrections are additive/corrective rather than destructive, that removals only happen when include_removals=True, and that output_path defaults to overwriting the input file.

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 appropriately sized for a complex mutation tool. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, safety behavior, recommended workflow, and parameter explanations are clearly separated and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy beyond minor repetition of defaults.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers behavior, parameter meanings, defaults, and workflow. It only stops short of describing the return/report format for dry_run, which would help an agent act on the preview.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained with meaningful context: mto_path and scsa_path roles, dry_run behavior, include_removals semantics, category matching diff_mto_scsa, and output_path's overwrite default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write the MTO/SCSA reconciliation into the MTO file.' It clearly differentiates this apply/write tool from the sibling diff_mto_scsa, which is a diff/report tool, by making the write action explicit.

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?

The recommended flow gives explicit sequencing: call with dry_run=True first, then dry_run=False, and only include_removals=True after reviewing removals. It does not explicitly name diff_mto_scsa as the alternative for previewing, but the conditional guidance around dry_run and include_removals still provides clear usage direction.

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