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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effects (writes Campaign or Articles state, marks the idea promoted) and the required write scope, which annotations don't convey. It repeats the not-idempotent hint already in idempotentHint=false, but that is redundancy rather than contradiction, and the scope/side-effect disclosure is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loads the core action and target options, then appends side effects, auth requirement, and idempotency in tight sentences. Every sentence carries actionable information with no padding.

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 non-output-schema mutation tool, it covers target semantics, side effects, scope, and idempotency/retry behavior well. The only gap is that it doesn't indicate what the tool returns (e.g. the new Campaign or entry id), which an agent may need to chain further calls.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the name default and the to=campaign/to=entry mapping. The description largely restates those mappings (name default, to values) rather than adding new syntax, format, or edge-case guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (parked idea) plus the two possible target types, so the agent knows exactly what transformation occurs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like park_idea, drop_idea, and list_parking.

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?

Implies the usage condition well: this is the tool for turning an already-parked idea into a Campaign or Articles entry, and it names the target values to choose between. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the alternative tools (e.g. park_idea/drop_idea), so it stops short of a 5.

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