apply_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: execute hands off to external executors (Cal.com/Stripe/Gmail), Pro limits executions to 3 per day, and logging is always free. It stops short of detailing authentication or error handling, but covers the main side-effect profile well.

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 an opening purpose, an Args section, and a closing rationale. It is concise and front-loaded, though the final sentence about the weekly retrospective is slightly philosophical and could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested payload, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, parameter meanings, and side effects well. It does not mention return values, but the absence of an output schema lowers the necessity. The free/pro distinction adds valuable context for invocation.

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?

The description fully explains all four parameters with examples: kind (auto_decline, reprice, rest_day), payload (who/when/how much), outcome (applied/dismissed/pending), and execute (Pro-only, connected executor). This compensates completely for the 0% schema description coverage, providing semantics that the schema lacks.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Record — or on Pro, execute — an action Tempo recommended.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'recommend_actions' by using 'apply' and referencing the source of the action.

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 clear context on when execution is available (Pro only) and that logging is always free, which helps the agent decide whether to set execute. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the complementary role to recommend_actions is implied by the tool's name and description.

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