promote_skillPromote a reviewed skill submission to Engine artifacts, making it retrievable via get_relevant_context. Only pending_review skills can be promoted. Returns the promoted artifact ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visibility | No | Override target visibility | |
| review_notes | No | Notes from the reviewer | |
| submission_id | Yes | ID of the skill submission to promote |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the state transition (promoting to Engine artifacts), the resulting retrievability via get_relevant_context, a hard prerequisite, and the return value. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core side effects are clear.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes meaningful information (action, effect, precondition, return). 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?
Given the moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential action, precondition, effect, and return. It lacks explicit permission/error details, but these are not required for a well-scoped tool with this schema richness.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning (e.g., how visibility override interacts with the promotion), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Promote') and resource ('reviewed skill submission to Engine artifacts'), and clarifies the effect ('making it retrievable via get_relevant_context'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_skill, dismiss_skill, and retract_skill.
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 provides a clear precondition: 'Only pending_review skills can be promoted.' This gives the agent a concrete criterion for when the tool is applicable, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.