evolve_mark_curator_report_applied

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions idempotency but does not specify whether the operation is destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., file modification), or if it requires authentication. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second adds constraints, and the third explains the idempotency property. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 only two parameters and a simple purpose, the description covers constraints, idempotency, and the directory location. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on what summary should contain.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It provides context for report_path (must be under THREADKEEPER_CURATOR_REPORTS_DIR, match pattern), but gives no hints for summary. The description partially compensates for the lack of parameter 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 tool's purpose: to mark a Curator report as processed by the evovle_applier child. It specifies constraints (directory, file pattern, content requirement), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like evovle_mark_applied and evovle_mark_roadmap_issue_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 explains that this tool acts as an idempotency gate, preventing reapplication. The context (sibling names like evovle_apply_curator_report) implies it is used after applying a report. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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