apply_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the operation is recorded as reversible, that old memories are invalidated but never deleted, and that confirmation is conditionally required. It could add more on failure modes or idempotency, but the core behavior is clearly transparent.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence contributes distinct information: what it executes, reversibility, memory invalidation policy, and confirmation requirements. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

All required invocation details are present: the required plan_id, the confirmation rules, and the important consequence of applying the plan. Without an output schema, return-value details are not necessary for correct invocation, and the description gives enough context for an agent to call this tool safely.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's confirm note largely mirrors the schema's parameter description rather than adding substantial new meaning, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') with a clear resource ('previously-generated merge/supersede plan by id'), which cleanly distinguishes it from plan-generation siblings like plan_merge and plan_supersede. It also clarifies that certain plan types need confirmation, so the agent knows what operation this performs.

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 clearly implies this is the execution step after plan generation and gives explicit preconditions for 'possible'/'non_match' plans. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like merge_undo for reversing an applied plan, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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