apply_winner

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does well by explaining the re-verification on a fresh clean fork, the receipt concept, and the return value. It could be more explicit about failure behavior and exact side effects on the local tree, but core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose, verification step, and return shape are all covered in a tight, front-loaded structure.

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?

With no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description needs to do more heavy lifting. It explains the main flow and return value, but leaves session_id semantics, test_cmd usage, failure behavior, and sibling-tool routing unaddressed.

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%, so parameter meaning must come from the description. It implies fork_id via 'one fork's diff,' repo_path via 'local tree,' and test_cmd via 're-verifies,' but session_id is never explained and no parameter is explicitly mapped to its schema property.

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 opens with 'Land one fork's diff on the local tree,' a concrete verb-object statement that clearly names the resource and target. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like try_all or try_many, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when a specific fork's diff should be landed on the local tree. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives like try_all/try_many, but the intended usage is apparent.

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