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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, notably omitting whether the prior baseline is replaced or lost, though it does not contradict the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste that states the action, resource, and required keys. It is appropriately sized, with slight overlap with the title.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and only 50% param coverage; the description should state what happens to an existing baseline, what is returned on success, and whether the run must first exist, none of which it covers.

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 coverage is 50%; the two required params (runId, envClass) are named in the description but the schema already documents them and botId/projectApiKey. No syntax, format, or constraints are added, so it merely restates schema content.

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 uses a specific verb ('Promote'), a specific resource ('performance run'), and names the exact required keys (runId + envClass), so the agent can distinguish it from siblings like list-perf-baselines or compare-perf-to-baseline. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast against those siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-perf-baselines (to find a run) or compare-perf-to-baseline (to diff against one). Only the purpose sentence implies context; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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