evolve_mark_roadmap_issue_applied

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true (safe to retry) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the triggering event ('opened a real pull request'), which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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: two lines with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and context, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (unknown content) and the tool is specialized, the description provides the necessary context about when it is called. However, it does not describe the exact effect on the roadmap issue (e.g., what state change 'handed off' implies), leaving some uncertainty about the tool's impact.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention or explain the parameters (issue_number, pr_url) at all. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description misses an opportunity to clarify their roles, leading to a gap.

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 a roadmap issue as handed off') and specifies the caller and precondition ('called by evolve_applier only after it has opened a real pull request'). This distinguishes it from sibling marking tools like 'evolve_mark_applied' which likely cover other cases.

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 states when to use (only after a real PR is opened) and who calls it (evolve_applier), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the condition is sufficient for correct usage.

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