ora_human_evolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that traits are merged (non-destructive to existing traits) while personality is replaced (destructive to existing personality). This is good transparency for mutation behavior. Lacks info on authorization, reversibility, or return values, but the core behavioral distinction is well communicated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 18 words that conveys purpose and key behavioral detail (merge vs replace). No redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could optionally mention the return value (e.g., updated human object) or side effects, but the tool's simplicity makes this adequate. Slight gap for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter's description already specifying the merge/replace semantics (e.g., 'fusionnes avec les existants' for traits). The tool description reiterates this without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool evolves the personality and traits of the active human, using a specific verb ('evolve') and resource ('human active'). It distinguishes from siblings like ora_human_create (creates new), ora_human_activate (activates), and ora_human_forget (removes) by focusing on mutation/update.

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 explains that traits are merged (not replaced) and personality is replaced, which clarifies the tool's behavior. However, it does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., if one wants to replace traits entirely, a different tool might be needed). No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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