ghl_clientportal_apply_project_change

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

The description explicitly says the operation is idempotent on `planId` and that a second apply returns the first result without writing again. This directly contradicts the annotation `idempotentHint: false`. That inconsistency is serious for a side-effecting operation.

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 core description is dense with useful error and idempotency details, but it opens with broader sandbox-edit/checkpoint guidance that is not specific to applying a plan. The key sentence 'Apply a signed plan once' is buried after that preamble rather than front-loaded.

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?

For a side-effecting two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, OAuth scope, idempotency behavior, partial results, and common 404/409 outcomes. An agent has enough information to invoke it and handle the main failure modes, aside from the annotation contradiction.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `projectId` and `planId` are structurally documented. The description adds important meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `planId` is a signed plan token used as the idempotency key, with stale, expired, and partial-result semantics.

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 verb and resource: apply a signed project change plan. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling planning tool by focusing on applying an existing `planId` rather than creating a plan. The endpoint and scope further confirm the exact operation.

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?

It gives strong operational guidance: apply once, reapply a partial result to finish remaining work, and plan again when the change is stale. It also explains 409 and 404 conditions. It does not explicitly name `ghl_clientportal_plan_project_change` as the alternative, but the intended workflow is still clear.

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