bridge_apply_plan

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 does disclose meaningful behavior — backups, an undo transaction, save/reopen, requested-value checks — which tells the agent this is a transactional, recoverable mutation. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, the effect on unlisted settings, and the return/response shape, leaving notable gaps for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core purpose, which is good. But it is terse to the point of being cryptic, with jargon like 'requested-value checks' and 'Coordinates mm' that a reader must decode.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition should explain the operations payload format and what gets changed/returned. It leaves the most important element — the structure of 'operations' — entirely unexplained.

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% and the description does not explain 'project', 'new', or the opaque 'operations' array (an array of free-form objects). 'Coordinates mm' hints at the unit convention for operation values but does not document the parameter structure, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opening clause 'Create/edit models only under configured write root' gives a clear verb (create/edit) and resource (models) plus a safety constraint. It implies a plan-application tool that mutates model data, which distinguishes it in spirit from siblings like bridge_validate_plan or bridge_preview_on_copy, though it never names them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. The phrase 'only under configured write root' signals a precondition but not when to choose this tool over bridge_validate_plan or bridge_preview_on_copy.

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