evolve_decisions

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

Despite no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it runs asynchronously, returns immediately with a started/pending status, and optionally persists results when repoPath is provided. This adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with clear sections for usage, inputs, and behavior. It is concise without being overly terse, though the first sentence could be slightly more direct.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested objects, async behavior, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: when to use, inputs, and asynchronous nature. It could elaborate on how progress is reported, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the purpose of stories and optional parameters but does not add new meaning beyond what's in the schema. The information about auto-persist with repoPath is already present in the schema's 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'curate a set of previously extracted stories so that only the decisions still worth keeping are persisted.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infer_history and record_decision by focusing on re-curation after initial extraction.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states scenarios: after infer_history in story-only mode or when re-curating existing stories without re-running history extraction. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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