Apply a confirmed portable bundle export

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it explicitly states 'write a new directory bundle without overwrite' (non-destructive, idempotent) and 'persist an idempotent export receipt' (recording behavior). It also mentions recovery after server restart, which is not in the annotations. No contradictions with annotations; the description enriches the behavioral model.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence lists the primary actions (reverify, write, persist) in a logical order, and the second adds a relevant recovery note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, though the sentence structure could be slightly clearer (e.g., 'A durable pre-write intent can recover...' is jargon-heavy).

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?

While the description conveys the tool's immediate actions, it lacks broader context: it does not reference the planning prerequisite (plan_bundle_export), explain what a 'portable bundle' is, or describe the overall workflow. There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to set expectations about return values, but it omits them. For a tool with many siblings, this leaves gaps in understanding the full lifecycle.

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%: none of the three parameters (planDigest, operationId, expectedTarget) have descriptions in the schema. The description fails to compensate: it only mentions 'expectedTarget' in passing ('visible expectedTarget') and provides no explanation of planDigest or operationId, their purpose, or how they relate to the workflow. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Reverify the exact source inventory and visible expectedTarget, write a new directory bundle without overwrite, and persist an idempotent export receipt.' It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('bundle export') and describes concrete actions, distinguishing it from sibling plan/apply pairs (e.g., plan_bundle_export). The title 'Apply a confirmed portable bundle export' further reinforces 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 implies the tool is for applying a confirmed bundle export, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like plan_bundle_export or other apply_* tools. It mentions 'confirmed' and 'Reverify' but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or a reference to the planning step. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate usage context.

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