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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write op, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: it carries supporting verbatims as evidence with links back to the study, and it flags that the call "may return needs_confirmation" – a non-obvious outcome an agent must handle.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the framing/value, then the return caveat. No wasted words; each sentence adds distinct information.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects (verbatim evidence + study links), and the confirmation outcome. The only real omission is the relationship between approvalId and the needs_confirmation flow, which would round it out.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the schema already documents themeId (including the omit-for-summary rule) and workspace, and the description reinforces the themeId fallback. However, approvalId is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful gap – the likely tie-in to needs_confirmation is never explained.

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 (promotes) and resource (an analysis theme or, with no themeId, the analysis summary) and names the destination (workspace's Ledger as a belief). This is distinct from any sibling tool – none of the other prism_* tools perform promotion into Ledger memory.

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?

"use when the user says an insight matters" gives a concrete usage trigger, and the parenthetical clarifies the themeId-omitted fallback. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. research_findings_list), but the trigger condition is clear and actionable.

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