Propose AI Pack growth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'does not mutate the pack' and 'creates a reviewable delta,' which gives an agent important safety and outcome context. It stops short of explaining whether other state changes occur or whether the operation is reversible, but it addresses the most critical behavioral concerns.

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 short sentences communicate the action, prerequisite, side-effect profile, and non-mutation guarantee. Every word earns its place, and the key operational constraint is front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and mutation safety. But there is no output schema and no explanation of what the 'reviewable delta' looks like or what the return value will be. It also does not position itself within the broader growth workflow, leaving the agent to infer follow-up steps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It does map runId to 'a successful run' and proposalIndex to 'a proposal,' which adds useful context. However, it does not explain how proposalIndex is derived, what the 'delta' represents, or how the proposal relates to run output, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 states a clear action ('Select a proposal from a successful run') and identifies the resource ('AI Pack growth'). It also hints at the tool's distinguishing behavior by saying it 'creates a reviewable delta and does not mutate the pack.' It does not fully differentiate from the sibling select_ai_pack_growth_version, but the core purpose is specific and understandable.

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 phrase 'from a successful run' implies a prerequisite: the caller should have a completed run before using this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over accept_ai_pack_growth, list_ai_pack_growth, or select_ai_pack_growth_version, and no 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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