Confirm Prompt Consumer

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it performs well: it states the concrete state transitions ('The consumer becomes source-backed, the file a prompt source, and the worklist re-derives'), which tells the agent this is a mutating operation with side effects on the run's worklist. It does not cover idempotency, overwrite behavior, or error conditions, but the core behavioral contract is transparent.

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 short paragraphs with zero filler. The purpose sentence is front-loaded, and the second paragraph packs parameter semantics and state-change consequences into three tightly-worded sentences. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 no explanation. The description covers purpose, workflow context, parameter semantics, and side effects, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly after querying get_run_status/list_adaptation_tasks. Minor gap: the optional `now` parameter's role is never explained, though its null default softens the impact.

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, and it does for the two domain-critical parameters: `location` is specified as a `path:line:keyword` with provenance from dynamic_prompt_consumers, and `source_path` is defined as 'the file the USER confirmed it reads.' `run_dir` is self-evident from its name, though `now` remains unexplained; the two params requiring domain knowledge are well covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record that one dynamic prompt consumer reads one prompt file.' It then states the precise outcome ('consumer becomes source-backed, the file a prompt source, and the worklist re-derives'), which clearly separates it from siblings like add_prompt_sources or confirm_unaffected. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 description gives a clear workflow context: `location` must come from the run's dynamic_prompt_consumers as reported by get_run_status / list_adaptation_tasks, and `source_path` is a file the USER confirmed. This tells an agent exactly when in the migration workflow this tool fits. It stops short of a 5 because it never names alternatives explicitly or states when NOT to use it versus add_prompt_sources.

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