Apply confirmed exact materialization

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: all failures are terminal and must not be retried with variations. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies failure handling.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then adding the critical failure caveat. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details about prerequisites, what 'expected' means, what happens on success, and why failures are terminal. A more complete description would explain the materialization flow and parameter roles.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level detail. It implies planDigest refers to a cached plan, but does not explain operationId, expectedProviderId, or expectedTarget, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic grounding for these fields.

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 action: 'Apply the cached exact plan once.' It uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('cached exact plan'), and distinguishes itself from sibling planning tools (plan_materialize) and other apply variants by emphasizing 'exact' and 'confirmed.'

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 provides clear usage context: this is for applying a cached, confirmed exact plan, and it explicitly warns not to retry failures with any alternative mode, provider, downloader, or template. While it doesn't name sibling alternatives directly, the exclusion guidance effectively tells the agent when not to use other tools.

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