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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds little behavioral context beyond those. 'Privacy-filtered project metadata' suggests some data handling behavior, but the description does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or what happens during promotion.

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 short, but its brevity comes from under-specification, not efficient communication. The phrase 'Update hosted promote insight to finding using privacy-filtered project metadata' is grammatically awkward and leaves key semantics unexplained.

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?

This is a write operation with 6 parameters, 3 required, a nested object, and no output schema, yet the description gives almost no useful context. An agent cannot reliably determine what to pass, what effects to expect, or how promotion differs from other finding-related operations.

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 0%, and the description names zero parameters. Required fields like projectId, findingId, and idempotencyKey are not mentioned, and the nested details object is left entirely unexplained. The description does nothing to compensate for the lack of schema parameter documentation.

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 mostly restates the tool name: 'promote insight to finding' is nearly identical to promote_insight_to_finding, with an awkward 'Update hosted' prefix that obscures rather than clarifies the operation. It does not clearly distinguish this from create_finding or update_finding, and the intended action is ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like create_finding, update_finding, or delete_finding. The phrase 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' hints at a context but does not explain any selection criteria or exclusions.

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