editor_apply_edit

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: clarifies the edit 'Does not save' despite being a mutation, discloses the SERIOUS_EDITOR_ALLOW_MUTATION=1 gate, and prescribes timeout recovery via editor_edit_status. Annotations alone (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent) would not convey the gating or the non-saving semantics.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose and preconditioning, save semantics plus auth gate, and timeout recovery. Front-loaded with the action and zero waste.

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?

No output schema, so return values would be useful, but the description covers the key unknowns for a gated mutation: it does not persist, needs an env flag, and how to recover from a timeout. Slight gap on what a successful apply returns.

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 coverage is 100% and the editId description already says it comes from editor_preview_edit and must not be invented. The prose reinforces 'previously previewed' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (apply) and resource (a previously previewed edit), and scopes it with prerequisite validation of original document, entity, and value. Clearly distinguishable from editor_preview_edit, which is named implicitly by 'previously previewed'.

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 concrete routing: only after a preview, and on timeout inspect editor_edit_status before retrying. Lacks an explicit when-not statement or direct naming of editor_preview_edit, but the sequence is inferable.

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