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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that it refuses without confirm:true, that a promotion may trigger an oversized catch-up refresh, that the table is STILL PROMOTED in that case, and that the response carries held_run requiring confirm_run or cancel_run. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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 core purpose and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, followed by return shape and the catch-up edge case. It is dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; the catch-up/held_run passage is long but necessary to avoid a wrong follow-up call.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields ({table_id, promotion_status, live_version_id, cadence, dashboard_url}) and covering the tricky held_run branch and the confirm gate. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears missing.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains confirm's semantics ('refuses without confirm: true') and shows table_id in the example, but the cadence parameter is never explained, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 specific verb (promote) and resource (table) and defines the operation's effect precisely: the newest passing version becomes the served one plus a recurring refresh starts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like start_run, which is explicitly named as not to call.

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?

Explicit conditions are given: 'Only call it when the person you are working for has said to' and 'Check the data with query_run first,' plus the negative routing instruction 'Do not call start_run for it.' It names both prerequisites and the alternative tool to avoid.

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