evolve_decide

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the tool only changes status ('promoted' or 'dismissed') and never applies edits. This aligns with annotations (not read-only, not destructive) and adds useful detail. No contradictions with 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 with a clear header, bullet points, and code formatting for parameter values. It is concise but informative. Minor redundancy: the statement 'this tool never applies' appears twice.

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 has an output schema (so return values are covered), the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior, parameter usage, and side effects. It could mention the life cycle of a suggestion (pending queue) but is otherwise 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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'decision' parameter values and the 'reason' parameter's purpose (especially for dismiss to note duplicate id). However, the 'evolve_id' parameter is not described at all. Overall, it adds moderate semantic value beyond the 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.' It explains the two decision options (promote and dismiss) with detailed effects, and distinguishes itself from siblings like evolve_apply by explicitly stating it never applies edits.

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 specifies that the tool is used by the autonomous evolve reviewer daemon and available manually. It clarifies when to use 'promote' versus 'dismiss' and the role of the 'reason' field. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives.

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