evolve_mark_applied

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the internal effects (sets applied=1, records PR URL) and the consequence (suggestion drops out of brief/review). It also notes that a human still reviews and merges the PR. Could be slightly more explicit about side effects, but overall very informative.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/caller, effect + required field with gate condition, and human review context. Front-loaded and zero waste.

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 output schema exists (assumed sufficient), the description covers the tool's effect, lifecycle, and constraints. It mentions the caller and the post-effect state. Missing potential error conditions, but overall complete for a simple mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds significant meaning for pr_url: 'REQUIRED and must be non-empty: this is the PR gate'. However, it provides no additional semantics for evolve_id beyond its presence in the schema. Partially compensates but not fully.

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 verb 'Mark' and the resource 'format-evolution suggestion', specifying the caller ('evolve_applier child') and the trigger condition ('after it has opened the PR'). This perfectly distinguishes it from sibling tools like evolve_mark_curator_report_applied.

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 the tool ('called by the evolve_applier child after it has opened the PR') and includes a critical constraint: 'never mark a suggestion applied without a real pull request'. It also specifies the pr_url must be non-empty, providing clear usage boundaries.

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