evolve_mark_roadmap_issue_applied

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool marks a roadmap issue as handed off and the precondition (after PR opened), but does not describe side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. Adequate for a simple state transition but could be improved.

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 very concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and condition without any wasted words, achieving high efficiency.

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 tool is simple with two required parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description covers the purpose and trigger condition, which is fairly complete for this narrow tool. However, explicit parameter documentation would fully complete it.

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. It implies issue_number identifies the roadmap issue and pr_url is the real PR URL, but does not explicitly define these parameters. The context helps, but explicit parameter descriptions are missing.

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 action ('mark as handed off'), the resource ('roadmap issue'), and the specific context (called by evolve_applier after opening a real PR). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like evolve_mark_applied and 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 specifies that this tool should be called only by evolve_applier and only after a real pull request has been opened. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is clear enough.

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