apply_osm_edit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the risk profile is structured data. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the tool itself requests one final approval from the MCP host before any OSM upload, and the confirmation is bound to a digest, which explains why the operation is idempotent. It stops short of describing failure modes (digest mismatch, missing permissions) or what the returned payload reports.

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?

Two short sentences split into purpose and usage guidance, with the key imperative ("call this tool immediately") front-loaded in the second paragraph. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema and annotations carry the return-shape and safety burden, so the description only needs to cover trigger semantics and the approval handshake, both of which are present. The remaining gap is modest: it never states what an apply failure looks like or that a proposal must already have been previewed/validated before this call.

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. "Digest-bound confirmation" does convey that proposal_digest must match the exact reviewed proposal, which is real added meaning for the most important parameter. However, proposal_id is assumed obvious with no explanation and changeset_id is never mentioned at all, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Apply a reviewed proposal") and adds a distinctive mechanic ("digest-bound confirmation"). It is clearly distinguishable from verification/preview siblings by the word "apply" and the mention of an "OSM upload", though no sibling tool is named explicitly for contrast.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ("When the user explicitly asks to publish or apply the exact reviewed proposal") and explicitly rules out an alternative behavior ("instead of asking another conversational confirmation"). It does not name a sibling such as verify_osm_edit as the prerequisite step, so the surrounding workflow is only implied.

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