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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing 'writes to Studio, creates billable AI usage', durable execution, mutation modes, partial failure policy, and detailed idempotency behavior (deterministic retry key when idempotencyKey is omitted). This is rich context that annotations only hint at.

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 verbose, repeats the title verbatim, and includes generic response-handling boilerplate (e.g., 'Use assistantSummary first', 'Never display raw JSON') that is not tool-specific. The core information is buried in a 200+ word paragraph.

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?

The description provides strong behavioral context (idempotency, failure policy, seat requirements) and an output schema exists for return values. However, it lacks parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, leaving notable gaps for a 9-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains workspaceId, idempotencyKey, and seatId/seatName. Parameters like accountId, approvalId, campaignId, advertiserId, and campaignName remain unexplained, leaving agents without enough meaning to populate them confidently.

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 clearly states the tool's specific action: 'Deliberately promote one approved LeanrIQ creative workspace into Studio'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the idempotent behavior (repeated promotion returns recorded result), which sets it apart from create/launch tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided. The description focuses on operational details and response formatting rather than when to choose this tool over sibling tools like leanriq_launch_creative_campaign or create_campaign. Usage is only implied by the word 'promote'.

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