document_apply

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

The description discloses that the tool re-validates, applies, and writes to a fixed directory, which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse openWorldHint annotation. However, it does not mention whether the operation overwrites existing data, whether it is reversible, or what happens on validation failure—important for a write/apply operation.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, followed by the destination. Every phrase earns its place, and the description is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, the description leaves gaps around prerequisites, such as whether the plan must come from document_preview, how re-validation failures are handled, and how this tool relates to document_import or document_preview_remove. Given minimal annotations, this is only partially complete.

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 schema provides no description for the required 'plan' object and has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds some meaning by identifying the parameter as a preview plan and noting that it fixes the target user or project registration directory, but it does not explain the plan's structure, required fields, or expected provenance.

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 states a specific action ('重新校验并应用预览计划' = re-validate and apply preview plan) and a destination ('写入计划固定的用户或项目登记目录' = write to the plan-fixed user or project registration directory). This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like document_preview or document_import.

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 wording implies this tool is used after a preview plan has been created, since it applies and re-validates a preview plan. However, it does not explicitly state when to use document_apply versus related siblings such as document_preview, document_import, or other apply tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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