wrap_gene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output file (phenotype.json) but says nothing about whether wrapping overwrites existing genes, whether writes need auth, or what error surfaces when the target is missing — substantial gaps for a filesystem-mutating tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the artifact and the precondition. No filler, though the second and third sentences could be merged without loss.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior, but it stops at purpose and one precondition. For a 6-parameter write tool in a dense sibling set, the relationship to compile_gene/install_gene and the failure/overwrite behavior are missing.

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 100%, so all six parameters (domain, fidelity, gene_name, from_skill, from_clawhub, project_root) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds only the precondition on the target, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (wrap) and resource (a function or SKILL.md into a Rotifer Gene) plus a concrete artifact produced (phenotype.json). It does not, however, disambiguate itself from siblings like compile_gene, init_gene, or create_agent, which an agent must infer from the list.

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 target must exist in the project" is a useful precondition, but the description never says when to choose wrap_gene over compile_gene/init_gene or when this step belongs in a workflow. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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