Apply a confirmed portable bundle export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it says the operation writes a new directory bundle without overwrite, persists an idempotent export receipt, and that a durable pre-write intent can recover a completed target after restart. This explains the idempotency mechanism and the non-destructive write behavior, which is valuable context not present in the annotations alone.

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 two sentences and reasonably concise. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second sentence adds a useful recovery detail. It is not overly verbose, though the phrase 'durable pre-write intent' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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 has no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description provides moderate context: it explains the write behavior, idempotency, and recovery capability. However, it does not explain what the export receipt contains, what the directory bundle structure is, or what the return value looks like. For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. The description mentions expectedTarget ('visible expectedTarget') and implies planDigest and operationId through the concepts of reverifying source inventory and persisting an idempotent receipt, but it does not explicitly explain each parameter's role or format. The schema provides patterns and constraints, but the description adds only partial semantic meaning for the parameters.

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: reverify the source inventory and expectedTarget, write a new directory bundle without overwrite, and persist an idempotent export receipt. This clearly identifies the tool as the apply counterpart to a bundle export plan, distinguishing it from planning tools and other apply tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or contrast itself with plan_bundle_export, so it loses a point for not explicitly differentiating from its most obvious sibling.

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 usage context: it is the apply step after a confirmed bundle export plan, and it mentions a durable pre-write intent can recover a completed target after operations restart. This gives some context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as plan_bundle_export or apply_publication_export. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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