operations_apply

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that exactly one receipt is committed and that stale/drifted receipts are rejected, but it says nothing about what happens on rejection, whether the receipt is consumed on failure, or what state changes result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the committing action and its preconditions are stated immediately.

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?

Output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety explanations, but for a destructive, non-idempotent commit operation the description omits where the receipt comes from, how drift is verified, and failure behavior — gaps that matter given the operations_verify/operations_inspect siblings.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage the baseline is already high, yet the description adds real meaning by constraining the receipt's validity (one-time, non-expired, drift-free) beyond the schema's 'returned by a preview tool'. It stops short of naming which preview tools mint receipts.

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 and resource ('Apply ... preview receipt') with tight scope constraints (exactly one, non-expired, drift-free). It does not name the sibling preview tools that produce receipts or operations_verify/operations_inspect, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 preconditions ('non-expired, drift-free') imply the preview-then-verify-then-apply sequence, but the description never names operations_verify or any *_preview tool as the source of the receipt. An agent must infer the workflow from sibling names rather than being routed.

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