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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation and not idempotent. The description adds the 'requires paid plan' constraint and clarifies the promotion concept. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting production or the deployment process, so it adds limited behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the action and a key requirement. It is concise with no wasted words or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core action and a prerequisite. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention the outcome or confirmation of promotion. Still, the combination of name, description, and schema covers the essential context.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a description of 'Project ID (UUID)'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to this parameter, so it relies on the schema, which adequately documents it.

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 function: 'Promote staging to production'. The verb 'promote' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_staging or deploy_graph_production. The resource is production, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is used to promote staging to production. It also mentions the prerequisite of a paid plan. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though sibling tool names imply the distinction. This is clear context without exclusions.

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