Apply confirmed full-Library Restore or Fork

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: it verifies every byte (integrity check), writes an immutable receipt (side effect), and never changes the active locator automatically (a non-obvious nuance). These details go beyond the structured annotations and clarify the tool's side effects and constraints, aligning with the idempotent and non-read-only hints without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical behavioral caveat. Every phrase adds value—'absent target', 'verify every byte', 'immutable operation receipt', and the locator behavior—with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior and side effects well. However, it does not mention that this is an 'apply' step requiring a prior confirmed plan (though implied by the name and sibling plan_full_restore), nor does it explain the parameters or potential error conditions. The absence of explicit prerequisites or invocation context makes it slightly incomplete for an agent that might not infer the plan/apply workflow from the sibling list.

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 input schema has two required parameters (planDigest, operationId) but zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide or how they relate to the restore/fork operation. Since the schema provides no descriptions and the tool description offers no compensation, parameter semantics are severely lacking.

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 action ('Restore/fork'), specifies the target condition ('into an absent target'), and lists concrete steps ('verify every byte, write an immutable operation receipt'). It also distinguishes this apply tool from siblings by noting the locator behavior and the absence of automatic changes. This goes beyond the title to provide a precise verb+resource+scope definition.

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: it is the apply step for a full restore/fork into an absent target, and it notes a key behavioral constraint (never changes active locator automatically). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use after plan_full_restore' or 'do not use if target already exists'. The 'absent target' and 'confirmed' in the title hint at prerequisites, but the description lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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