apply_project_patch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safe workspace file changes' and 'create rollback metadata', hinting at mutation with safety features, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what 'safe' entails. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Apply one or more safe workspace file changes') and adds value with the rollback feature. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (mutation with rollback), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it lacks behavioral details and parameter explanations. However, the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true') mitigates some gaps by likely documenting return values, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It vaguely references 'changes' and 'rollback metadata', but doesn't clarify the structure of 'changes' (e.g., path, content, expectedOldHash) or the purpose of 'reason'. This leaves key semantics undocumented.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('apply', 'create') and resources ('workspace file changes', 'rollback metadata'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'write_project_file_preview' or 'rollback_project_patch', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_project_file_preview' or 'rollback_project_patch', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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