evolve_apply

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

The description comprehensively explains the tool's behavior: spawns a child, edits a specific file, adds golden test, runs full suite, opens PR, never pushes to main, sets applied via another tool, and single-flight. This far exceeds the minimal annotations.

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 and front-loaded with a one-line summary. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It is appropriately detailed.

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 single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, preconditions, and behavior. It mentions related tools and return format, making it fairly complete.

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?

The single parameter `evolve_id` is not described in the schema (0% coverage), but the description provides context: it should be an ID from evolve_review() and must be promoted+unapplied. This adds meaning beyond the type.

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 action: 'Implement a PROMOTED + not-yet-applied format-evolution suggestion.' It details the whole process, distinguishes from siblings like evolve_review, and specifies the output.

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 gives preconditions (ids from evolve_review(), must be promoted and unapplied) and concurrency rules (single-flight). It does not explicitly compare to other evolve_apply_* variants, but the context is sufficient.

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