evolve_mark_applied

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior: it sets applied=1, which removes the suggestion from the brief / evolve_review, and it records the PR url. The PR-gate semantics and branch-protection caveat are genuinely beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and effect, then adds the PR-gate constraint. The 'never mark...' sentence earns its place as a guardrail. Slightly verbose in restating the applied=1 consequence, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. With that covered, the description supplies caller context, side effects (drops from brief/review), a required-parameter constraint, idempotency-relevant behavior, and the PR-gate rule. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for pr_url: REQUIRED, must be non-empty, and functions as the PR gate. The evolve_id parameter's meaning is only implied by context, which is a minor gap, but overall it compensates well for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (mark) and resource (format-evolution suggestion) plus the resulting state (APPLIED). It also names the caller context (evolve_applier child after opening the PR), which is unusually specific. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like evolve_mark_roadmap_issue_applied or evolve_mark_curator_report_applied, but the 'format-evolution suggestion' qualifier implicitly separates it.

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?

Tells the agent when this is called (by the evolve_applier child after opening the PR) and gives a strong 'never' exclusion ('never mark a suggestion applied without a real pull request'). It doesn't list alternative tools, but the timing and prohibition guidance is clear and actionable.

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