module_apply

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral guardrail: when the source changes, the tool retains the current file and requires a re-preview. This goes beyond the sparse annotations, which only contain openWorldHint: false. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or what happens on a normal successful apply.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the key conditional behavior. No word is wasted, and the most important usage detail appears immediately.

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 tool with one opaque input parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential workflow constraint and the re-preview condition. It is concise but sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it in the module preview/apply cycle, though it leaves out error scenarios and exact effect details.

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 single 'plan' parameter has no schema description, and overall schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates partially by stating the plan must come from module_preview, which constrains its provenance and expected structure. It still does not describe the plan's internal shape or required fields, leaving the agent with limited semantic guidance.

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 an apply/submit action on the plan produced by module_preview, which distinguishes it from module_preview itself and other apply-like siblings. It names the specific resource ('module_preview 的 plan') and implies a concrete workflow step. However, it does not explicitly state what applying the plan ultimately changes in the system.

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 implies the tool should be used after module_preview, since it takes that tool's plan as input. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with other apply variants like host_apply, document_apply, or context_apply. The usage context is inferable but not clearly delimited.

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