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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits: write semantics, a lifecycle side effect (epistemic status elevation plus creation of a permanent cell asset), and a human-approval gate. It even sketches the return payload. It does not discuss reversibility after promotion or permission requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: scope tag, core action with approval gate, then return value and side effects. The bracketed prefix plus the inline JSON return example is slightly noisy given no output schema exists, but every element carries information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action, the prerequisite, the side effects, and the return shape. What remains unstated — reversibility of promotion, permission requirements — is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 100% for the single `id` parameter, so the schema already documents it as a hypothesis ID or filename. The description adds only an indirect hint that the target is a v0.1 artifact; it gives no format, prefix, or partial-match guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description gives a specific verb (promote), a specific resource (an unverified hypothesis v0.1) and a specific outcome (permanent verified cell v1.0), naming the version transition. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like discard_hypothesis or vault_write_cell without opening any schema.

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?

It states the governing precondition — promotion happens 'upon user approval' and is 'explicit' rather than automatic — which tells the agent this is a deliberate, confirmed action. It stops short of naming where the alternative paths live (e.g. discard_hypothesis for rejecting a hypothesis), so it is a clear context cue rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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