edgegate_new_eval_set_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the original published version and references/runs bound to its sha are untouched, that a fresh draft is forked as version+1, and that workspace write access is needed. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits details on existing drafts or return behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, how to continue the workflow, and safety guarantee. No filler.

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 core function, workflow, and non-destructive side effects. Given no output schema, it does not specify the return value or error conditions, but the information provided is sufficient for correct usage.

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 only 33% (from_version is documented). The description adds 'seeded with its cases' to clarify from_version's role, but does not elaborate on workspace_id or eval_set_id semantics beyond their names. Since the schema already covers from_version, the description provides only marginal benefit for the undocumented params.

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?

Description identifies a specific verb ('Fork a fresh draft') and resource ('from a PUBLISHED version, seeded with its cases'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like edgegate_update_eval_set by framing it as the 'edit-after-publish path'.

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?

States the workflow 'Edit the new draft with edgegate_update_eval_set, then re-publish', giving clear context on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions/alternatives for creating from scratch (edgegate_create_eval_set), so a score of 4.

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