apply_merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that a backup is created, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., overwriting, error conditions) or required permissions, leaving some gaps.

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 with a clear action statement, usage note, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, input parameters, and return type. It does not elaborate on prerequisites or edge cases, but it is reasonably complete for a merge-apply tool.

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%, but the description includes meaningful parameter explanations (namespace, config_name, merged_content, target_path) that add clarity beyond the schema. Each parameter is briefly but adequately described.

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 action: 'Write LLM-merged content to the target path, creating a backup of the original.' It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it should be called after preview_merge, fitting uniquely into the merge workflow.

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 says 'Call this AFTER the LLM has produced the merged content from preview_merge output,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sequencing is sufficient for this tool.

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