apply_customization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Save' without detailing whether files are overwritten, appended, or validated. There is no information about permissions, error conditions, or side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a concise purpose statement, a critical usage guideline, and an enumerated parameter list. Each part serves a distinct role without redundancy, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more terse.

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 has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on error handling, file overwrite behavior, and permission prerequisites, which are important for a mutation tool. It is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 compensates by explaining the type ('rule' or 'skill'), name ('required for skills' and 'can be empty or cursor for rules'), content ('complete text content'), and the purpose of is_global and workspace_path. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default information.

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 'Save the rules or skills customizations,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_customizations, read_customization, and write_proposal by implying it is for applying/saving, not for listing, reading, or proposing.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Always ensure you have written a proposal and obtained user confirmation before calling this tool,' providing clear when-to-use and prerequisite conditions. This guides the agent to use write_proposal first and get confirmation, making the usage context unambiguous.

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