apply_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes to disk, creates a timestamped backup, and updates the proposal row with status, timestamp, and backup path. This is detailed and honest about state 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 concise with a clear main action, bullet-style argument explanation, and logical flow. It is front-loaded with the primary function. Could be slightly more compact, but structure is effective.

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 simple parameter set (1 param) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: disk write, backup, database update. It lacks explicit output description but compensates with detail on side effects.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying 'proposal_id: the id from skill_improvement_proposals'. This clarifies the parameter's origin and type beyond the schema's bare integer definition.

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 verb 'apply' and the resource 'self-improvement proposal', specifying that it writes the proposed change to disk. It distinguishes from siblings like 'draft_self_improvement_proposal' and 'approve_proposal' by focusing on the final execution step.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_proposal' or 'reject_proposal'. It mentions the parameter's source ('id from skill_improvement_proposals') but lacks prerequisites or context on proposal lifecycle.

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