apply_intake_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('applies') but does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what side effects occur on 'live memory', or whether permissions are required. The word 'directly' hints at an immediate effect but provides no detail about consequences or idempotency, leaving the agent unaware of the impact.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient in length. However, it is so minimal that it borders on restating the tool name ('applies an intake proposal' echoes 'apply_intake_proposal'), adding only 'to the live memory' as new information. While front-loaded and brief, it lacks the substance needed for a well-structured description.

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 has a single parameter, but the description fails to explain any context: what an intake proposal batch is, how to obtain batch_id, what happens after application, or whether there are side effects. There is no output schema and no annotations to fill gaps. The description is wholly inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, despite the simple interface.

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 one parameter, batch_id, with no description beyond its type. The tool description does not explain what batch_id represents, how to obtain a valid value, or any constraints (e.g., format, source). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description offers no compensatory guidance, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning of the parameter.

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 states a clear verb ('applies') and resource ('intake proposal batch to live memory'), which makes the tool's core purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like trusted_memory_review or list_intake, relying on the verb 'directly applies' to imply it is the final execution step. The resource is specific enough to distinguish from other memory tools, but the lack of explicit contrast prevents a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., that a proposal batch must exist), nor does it mention that this tool bypasses review or that it should be used after trusted_memory_review. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for its current task beyond the name itself.

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