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

The description discloses that this is a state-changing 'promote' operation, and annotations confirm it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not marked destructive. However, it does not describe side effects such as what happens to the current live snapshot or whether promotion can be undone, leaving those details to inference.

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 a single 13-word sentence with no filler. The core action and target state are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple mutation with three required, fully described parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential behavior and allowed source states. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying what happens to the previous live snapshot or what the response contains, but annotations and schema cover the safety profile and parameters.

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?

All three parameters are already fully documented in the input schema, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies; notably, the schema's 'kind' description says 'Snapshot kind to list,' a likely copy-paste artifact that the tool description does not correct.

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 states a precise state-transition: promote a 'draft or historic Clarity v2 snapshot' to 'live for its kind.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling snapshot tools like generate, save, list, revert, and stop, which create, persist, list, or reverse snapshots rather than changing their live status.

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 phrase 'draft or historic ... to live' gives a clear trigger condition: use this tool when a non-live snapshot of either enum kind should become the live one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for choosing it over related snapshot operations.

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