apply_manifestwork

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

The description adds the approval token requirement and the two-step process, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not restate the destructive hint, but the annotations already cover that; the added token context is valuable.

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 concise and well-structured. The main action is front-loaded, and the Args section is brief, with no redundant information.

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?

The description provides complete invocation context: required token, parameter sources, and step relationship to propose_manifestwork. With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters, including their origins: proposal_id from propose_manifestwork and approval_token from `ocm-mcp approve <id>`. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Apply a previously proposed ManifestWork', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like propose_manifestwork and rollback_manifestwork by the 'previously proposed' qualifier and the mention of an approval token.

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 implies the tool is used as the second step after propose_manifestwork, referencing that proposal_id comes from that function. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'previously proposed' phrasing provides clear usage context.

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