Update the selector registry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly reveals that this mutates the runtime overlay and that effects appear without redeployment. Still, it does not say whether existing selectors are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure.

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 one crisp sentence with a front-loaded action and a useful consequence. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool itself is simple and the schema defines the parameter shapes, so the description is close to sufficient. However, without annotations or an output schema, an agent still lacks context about preconditions (what 'reviewed' requires), whether the change persists, and what the tool returns on success.

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 needed to explain what selectorId and strategies mean beyond their schemas. It only says 'selector entry', which gives domain context but does not clarify the role of either parameter or how strategies relate to the selector.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'applies a reviewed selector entry to the runtime overlay'. It is not a tautology and communicates a distinct action from siblings like approve, reject, or dry_run, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for comparison.

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 phrase 'applies a reviewed selector entry' implies this is the post-review application step, and 'fixes land without a redeploy' clarifies when it is useful. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines, and no alternative tools are named.

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