apply_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool does not modify project files and operates on a buffer file. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error conditions, return values, or prerequisites. The description provides basic safety information but is not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the core purpose and one sentence for an important clarification. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action. No redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains its role in the broader workflow. It clarifies the buffer location and the separation of marking from actual file modification. However, it could be improved by specifying the return value or confirmation behavior.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'ids' with a description in the schema itself ("Indices of edits to mark. Empty = all."). The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: marking changes as applied in the buffer. It also clarifies what it does not do (modify project files), which distinguishes it from related operations. The sibling tools get_changes and clear_changes have different purposes, so this description effectively differentiates the tool.

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 description explains the tool's role in the workflow by noting that project files are written by auto-apply or the manual /visbug-apply command. This provides context on when to use this tool (to mark changes) versus when other mechanisms handle actual file writing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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