neurogenesis__submit_evaluation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose non-obvious effects: it mutates the agent's graph (strengthens/weakens used edges), growth and pruning follow the genome's rules under safety axioms (NG1), and it writes to an audit ledger. It omits auth/permission requirements and idempotency (the request_id parameter is unaddressed), so it is strong but not complete.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the action and stays on topic. The bracketed tag prefix is mildly decorative, but every substantive sentence contributes (payload shape, mechanism, return value).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a loose input schema, the description covers what the tool does, its mutation semantics, and that it returns ledger events. The main gaps are the meaning of request_id and any auth idempotency guarantees, minor against the overall coverage.

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% and the evaluation object is additionalProperties:true, so the description's enumeration of expected fields (task_id, task_type, success_score in [0,1], optional accuracy/user_satisfaction/cost_efficiency/safety_score/notes/used_nodes/used_edges) adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. agent_id and request_id remain unexplained, but the key nested payload is well compensated.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Evolve an agent with one task outcome') and explains the mechanism (success strengthens edges, failure weakens them). It is clear what the tool accomplishes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like record_route_outcome or create_agent.

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?

It implies usage ('with one task outcome') but never states when to call this versus alternatives such as record_route_outcome or route_task, nor any prerequisites or when-not conditions. Guidance is left to inference.

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