evolve_mark_curator_report_applied

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: it validates file location, naming, marker, and content hash, and explains that replay or swapped reports are rejected—useful context beyond the structured data.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose and dense, relevant constraints. No filler.

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 an output schema and annotations that cover return and idempotency/safety, and the description covers path/match/marker/hash preconditions. The missing documentation of the required summary parameter and lack of explicit sibling routing leave a meaningful gap.

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 descriptions are 0%, so the description carries the burden. It indirectly explains report_path (must live under THREADKEEPER_CURATOR_REPORTS_DIR and match REPORT-*.md) and report_sha256 (must match parent-verified content hash), but it never explains the required summary parameter or the expected formats.

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 names a specific verb and resource: mark a Curator report as processed by the evolve_applier child. It is clear about the object and operation, and the nuanced preconditions distinguish it from related evolve_apply/mark siblings.

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?

It gives clear context that this is called after the evolve_applier child has processed a report, and enumerates acceptance preconditions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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