content_evolve_strategy

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

Annotations already communicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds context by explaining the call routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects evolve_strategy has or what it changes.

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, leading with the action then routing context and args. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence carries information.

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 an open-world dispatch-style tool, the routing, auth scope, and two-arg contract are covered and an output schema exists. The main gap is the absence of domain semantics explaining what 'evolve_strategy' does, which leaves tool selection among many similar content actions to inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the only meaning: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. This is useful but shallow; the expected structure or possible keys of the JSON inputs are left unspecified.

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 the invocation verb 'Run' and identifies a specific resource: the content domain agent action evolve_strategy. It is clear enough to know which action is being invoked, though it does not describe what the strategy evolution actually accomplishes or distinguish it from sibling content_* actions.

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 says nothing about when to choose this tool over the many content_* or dispatch_domain_agent alternatives. It gives mechanism and scoping but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions.

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