metrika_manage_apply

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real mechanism beyond that: the same idempotency key 'replays the stored result' and the tool reads back after executing, which explains the idempotency contract rather than just repeating the hint.

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 compact sentences front-load the action and the idempotency contract with no padding. The trailing fragment 'Writes.' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but the core content is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. Still, for a destructive, open-world write with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained 'operation' and 'args' parameters leave a real gap in what can actually be invoked.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, but it only names approval_id and idempotency_key (and a 'write flag' that does not map to any schema property). The 'operation' and 'args' parameters are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('an accepted Metrika write') and frames it as the apply step of a prepare/apply workflow. It implies differentiation from metrika_manage_prepare/reconcile, but never names those siblings explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Accepted' and 'once' imply the write must first be prepared and approved before this is called, giving implied usage context. However, it never states when to use this versus metrika_manage_prepare, metrika_manage_reconcile, or metrika_manage_read, leaving the routing to inference.

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