evolve_mark_curator_report_applied

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of 'idempotency gate' adds marginal value. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context about preventing replay. However, it does not detail other behavioral traits 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?

The description is concise with three front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by conditions. No redundant information, but the structure could be improved by explicitly listing parameter roles.

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?

The description covers the report conditions and idempotency but does not explain the 'summary' parameter or behavior when conditions are not met. It also does not differentiate from sibling marking tools. Given that an output schema exists, return values are not required, but overall context is slightly incomplete.

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, and the description does not explain the purpose or constraints of the two parameters ('report_path' and 'summary'). It only implies the path condition in prose but does not map to the parameter. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Curator report as processed'. It specifies conditions for the report (directory, filename pattern, content). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling marking tools like 'evolve_mark_applied' or 'evolve_mark_roadmap_issue_applied', only implicitly by referencing curator reports.

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 provides conditions for when to use the tool (report must meet path and content requirements) and mentions it as an idempotency gate. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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