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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the source may be a draft or historic snapshot and the target is live, but it does not say what prior live state is replaced, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are needed — useful context but not rich disclosure for a destructive mutation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action, source scope, and target state.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description states the operation but omits side effects such as what happens to the existing live snapshot and any prerequisites. Annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, so it is usable but not fully complete.

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 already documents process_id, snapshot_id, and the kind enum values. The description adds only the phrase 'for its kind', which does not extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Promote'), resource ('Clarity v2 snapshot'), and scope ('draft or historic ... to live for its kind'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like generate/save/revert by the promotion action, but does not explicitly name an alternative or boundary.

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 when to use the tool — to move a draft or historic snapshot to live — but gives no when-not guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives such as revertClarityProcessSnapshot. The agent must infer the context from the operation name.

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