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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context by clarifying the action applies a 'frozen variant snapshot' to the agent. This explains *what* gets mutated, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects, leaving some gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits important contextual details: what happens to the previous agent configuration, whether the promotion is reversible, required permissions, and any rate limits. Given the destructive nature and absence of annotations beyond safety hints, more disclosure would be beneficial.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., no mention of what productionTestId represents or the superadmin-only nature of customerId). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (promote), resource (decided production A/B test), and mechanism (applying frozen variant snapshot to the agent). This is highly specific and distinguishes it from siblings like rollback_production_test or apply_variant.

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 implies the test must be 'decided' (a precondition), but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like apply_variant or start_production_test. Some usage is implied by context but no explicit guidance is provided.

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