ratify_rfc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that the tool creates a PR, making the mutating nature clear, and includes a useful configuration note about GITHUB_TOOLS_ENABLED=false. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior, which would be valuable for a write operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, Requires, Args, Returns, and Note. Every section contributes necessary information. It is slightly longer than necessary because it restates all parameters, but since the schema lacks descriptions, this repetition is justified.

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 tool's purpose, precondition, all parameter semantics, return values, and an environment-based disable note. It is reasonably complete for invoking the tool correctly. It lacks alternative-tool guidance and error-condition context, but those are secondary given the output schema exists and the description already covers the critical prerequisites.

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 the description must compensate. It does: each parameter gets a meaningful one-line explanation, such as 'repo: Repository in owner/repo format' and 'adr_number: Explicit ADR number (required to prevent collisions).' The parameter descriptions add real semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific action: 'Generate ADR from Door synthesis and create PR.' This clearly identifies the tool's resource and outcome. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like extract_decision_record, which could plausibly overlap in purpose.

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 a clear precondition: 'Requires: Debate must be closed with synthesis.' This gives the agent a concrete gate for when to call the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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