Apply a confirmed signed provider change

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

Annotations already declare this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation; the description adds meaningful context by disclosing stale-state validation, replay protection, and the rejection of direct key/endpoint overrides. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and the key input restriction immediately after. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the plan, stale-state checks, replay protection, and input restrictions, which is solid for a destructive apply operation. It lacks explicit guidance on how to obtain/provide planDigest and operationId, what expectedAction should match, and what the caller should expect back, so it is not fully complete for a 4-required-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 low (25%), so the prose needed to define the four required parameters, but it only indirectly maps 'plan' and 'operation-id' to planDigest/operationId. expectedAction and expectedProviderId are left to the schema, and expectedProviderId alone has a schema description, leaving the agent under-informed about the required values.

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 names a specific verb ('Apply'), a specific resource ('exact cached provider-source plan'), and key constraints (stale-state checks, operation-id replay protection). This clearly distinguishes it from the plan_provider_source_change sibling and from other apply_* tools.

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 phrase 'exact cached provider-source plan' clearly implies this is the commit step after a plan exists, and 'never accepts a raw public key or endpoint override' tells the agent to use it only for pre-confirmed signed changes. It does not explicitly name the planner tool or say when to use an alternative, so it stops short of a full when/when-not rule.

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