evolve_decisions

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 key behaviors: runs asynchronously, returns immediately with a started/pending status, progress reported separately, and optional persistence via `repoPath`. This adds significant context about the tool's operation beyond a simple function call.

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 sections (When to use, Inputs, Behavior) and uses concise bullet-style prose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and usage, making it easy to scan.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, async behavior, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavior well. However, it lacks specification of the output or return value structure. It mentions 'started/pending status' but does not describe what the final result looks like, which is a gap since there is no output schema to compensate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains that `stories` come from a previous `infer_history` run, `repoPath` triggers persistence, `model` specifies an Anthropic model, and that `forkAuthor`, `repoOrigin`, `workspaceId` are usually auto-resolved. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Curate a set of previously extracted stories so that only the decisions still worth keeping are persisted.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool `infer_history` by noting that it is rarely needed standalone because `infer_history` already chains this step. This makes the tool's purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use: after `infer_history` in story-only mode or when re-curating pre-existing stories. It mentions that `infer_history` already chains this step automatically, implying the rare case. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to other sibling tools beyond `infer_history`.

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