yaaif_agent_spec_adopt

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose two important effects: existing authored Scenario prose is preserved and a baseline revision is published. However, it does not explain version-mismatch behavior, irreversibility, or side effects beyond publishing, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation 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?

Two short sentences carry the core action, prerequisite, and key behavioral guarantee with no filler. The description is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the meaning and source of expected_version, the relationship to yaaif_agent_spec_adoption_preview results, and what the agent should expect in return. This leaves a meaningful gap for a tool with only two required parameters.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. spec_id is inferable from the name, but expected_version's role as a concurrency/version guard is not described, so the agent lacks the semantic detail needed to pass it correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('previously reviewed adoption preview'), and clarifies the outcome ('baseline revision is published'). This distinguishes yaaif_agent_spec_adopt from the sibling yaaif_agent_spec_adoption_preview, which generates rather than applies the preview.

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?

'Previously reviewed' is an explicit precondition, so the agent knows the tool should only be invoked after a preview has been reviewed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the workflow 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.