apply_proposal_tool

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it modifies disk content, creates a timestamped backup for revertibility, and updates the proposal database record. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does so adequately with clear side effects.

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 (three sentences plus Args) and front-loaded with the main action. It is well-structured but could be slightly more streamlined by removing the redundant 'writes the proposed change to disk' phrasing.

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 one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and side effects. However, it omits potential failure cases or dependencies (e.g., proposal must exist and be in a valid state), which would improve completeness.

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 parameter proposal_id is described as 'the id from skill_improvement_proposals', adding crucial context beyond the schema's simple integer type. Despite 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's provenance.

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 explicitly states 'Apply a self-improvement proposal' and details the action: writes proposed change to disk, backs up the previous skill.md, and updates the proposal row. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'propose_skill_improvement' or 'reject_proposal'.

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 when a proposal is ready to be applied, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., approve_proposal, reject_proposal). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are provided.

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