progressive_inject

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: stepwise injection, user confirmation via approve/reject. However, it omits details on final output, side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and process. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action and key characteristics (progressive, user confirmation). Ideal conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It fails to explain output modes (diff/temp/persist), the role of step_filter, or how the tool integrates with sibling tools like approve_step. Leaves critical gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context about the process (e.g., source supplies dimensions) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: progressive injection of source skill dimensions into a base skill, one dimension at a time with user approval. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compose_skills' by emphasizing the stepwise process and user confirmation, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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 implies usage for gradual skill enhancement with user confirmation, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'compose_skills' or 'approve_step'. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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