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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the mutation effects: success strengthens used edges, failure weakens them, and growth/pruning follow genome rules under safety axioms. It also discloses that new developmental-ledger events are returned. Minor gaps remain around idempotency and whether repeated submissions are allowed, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence earning its place: the purpose and input format, the behavioral effects, and the return value. Some jargon such as 'NG1' and 'developmental-ledger events' is not expanded, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 complex tool with a nested object and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: evaluation fields, success/failure consequences, safety constraints, and return type. Since an output schema exists, return formatting need not be spelled out. The main remaining gaps are request_id semantics and the relationship to record_route_outcome.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job for the evaluation object by listing task_id, task_type, success_score range, and optional fields. However, agent_id and request_id receive no explanation, and request_id's purpose remains ambiguous beyond having a null default.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: evolving an agent based on a task outcome, and it enumerates the exact evaluation fields and their meanings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like record_route_outcome by describing a full agent evolution process, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus record_route_outcome or other sibling tools. The phrase 'with one task outcome' implies it is meant to be called after a task with evaluation results, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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