adjudicate_defensive_mutation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait: no execution and no promotion, i.e. a non-side-effecting adjudication. It omits determinism/idempotency, whether the decision is persisted, and any auth or cost characteristics, so the disclosure is helpful but partial.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the critical non-side-effecting caveat. Dense jargon but no filler; every clause maps to a real stage or constraint.

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?

The description covers the decision output (a sealed Merkle evidence root), which partially compensates for the absent output schema, and it frames the required-parameter flow. But with 6 nested parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition stops short of what an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters (including nested scenario, baseline, baselineReplay, policy), yet the description names none of them explicitly. Its phrases ('same-scenario replay', 'impact screen', 'positive fitness delta') only loosely hint at baselineReplay and policy.requiredFitnessMargin, adding little usable meaning for the caller.

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?

States a specific verb ('Adjudicate') plus resource ('one defensive-mutation episode') and enumerates the pipeline stages (impact screen, replay, regression gates, fitness delta, Merkle seal). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling tools it differs from (e.g. verify_episode_evidence), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 closing line 'Executes nothing and promotes nothing on its own' usefully implies this is an adjudication-only step, not a promotion path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against siblings like verify_episode_evidence or verify_immune_lineage, leaving the selection ambiguous.

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