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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: it explains the prior canonical keeps running but loses its production URL, that guarded mode blocks for a verdict, that FAIL restores the candidate with no data lost, and that INSUFFICIENT_SIGNAL parks the run with no confirm tool available. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive, blocking 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?

Front-loaded with the state change and its side effect, then the mode branch, then the auth requirement. Slightly dense with nested parentheticals in the guarded sentence, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant 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 destructive, potentially blocking mutation with an output schema (run_id/state/verdict are noted as returned) and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: what changes, what the old canonical retains, and how non-PASS outcomes are resolved. Nothing needed to call it safely is absent.

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 every parameter including the guarded-mode semantics is already documented, and the description largely recaps mode/expose rather than adding format or default detail beyond the schema. The one value-add is the census that mode is optional and that omitting it retains legacy behavior, which the schema also states.

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 (commit) plus the precise resulting state: it becomes the project's canonical (production) deploy. The mention of the expose_commit alias and the contrast with demote_commit/expose_commit in the sibling list makes the boundary clear without opening another schema.

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?

Gives concrete selection guidance for the main branching decision: use mode="guarded" to gate on an SLO canary, omit or pass "manual" for the instant flip, and states the read-write token prerequisite. It does not explicitly distinguish this from redeploy/rollback_commit/demote_commit, which is the remaining gap.

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