Metis — Apply Proposal Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write-to-disk action, backup creation, and database update. However, it fails to mention whether the operation is reversible (backup implies some reversibility but not explicitly), required permissions, or behavior on invalid proposal_id. Some transparency, but gaps remain.

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 three sentences plus an Args line, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: what it does, backup detail, database update, parameter meaning. No unnecessary words.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main effects: write, backup, status update. It does not explain error handling or state prerequisites, but for a single-parameter tool with clear purpose, it is largely sufficient. Minor completeness gaps leave room for improvement.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the parameter 'proposal_id' as 'the id from skill_improvement_proposals', giving context beyond the schema's bare type and title. This is helpful for agent understanding, though additional detail on validity constraints would improve it further.

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', with specific actions: writes change to disk, backs up previous content, updates proposal row. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'propose_skill_improvement' (creation) and 'approve_proposal' (state change) by focusing on execution.

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 the tool is used when a proposal is ready to be applied, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'approve_proposal' or 'reject_proposal'. No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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