apply_proposal_tool

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

The description discloses the backup mechanism (previous skill.md backed up as .bak.<timestamp>), the status update to 'applied', and the applied_at timestamp and backup path. This goes beyond the basic action, though it could mention potential risks like overwriting existing files.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses clear structure with an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single parameter and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description explains input, effect, and side effects (backup, status update). It covers the core workflow adequately.

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 only parameter, proposal_id, is described as 'the id from skill_improvement_proposals', which adds source context but no additional guidance on how to obtain the id. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 action (apply) and resource (self-improvement proposal), specifying it writes the proposed change to disk. It distinguishes from siblings like approve_proposal and reject_proposal by focusing on the write operation.

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 when to use (to apply a proposal after approval), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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