evolve_decide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes the suggestion's status to 'promoted' or 'dismissed' and explicitly states it never applies edits. This is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return value, though the output schema may cover the latter.

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 concise yet packed with necessary information. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence serves a purpose (usage context, decision options, parameter guidance). There is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, the two decisions, and the reason parameter. It mentions daemon usage and clarifies that it does not apply edits. However, it could provide slightly more detail on what happens after promotion or dismissal (e.g., whether the suggestion is removed from the queue). Still, it is largely complete for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains 'evolve_id' (implied ID of suggestion), lists and explains the two valid values for 'decision' ('promote' and 'dismiss') with detailed outcomes, and provides guidance for 'reason' (one line, especially which duplicate ID for dismiss). This adds extensive meaning beyond the bare 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Triage a pending format-evolution suggestion.' The verb 'triage' and resource 'format-evolution suggestion' are specific. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like evolve_apply by explicitly noting that this tool never applies edits, leaving that for foreground/human actions.

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 explains the tool is used by the autonomous evolve reviewer daemon and manually, and clearly differentiates when to use 'promote' (still relevant and worth doing) versus 'dismiss' (duplicate, superseded, stale). It also gives guidance for the 'reason' parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or provide alternatives.

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