agent_studio_promote_and_publish

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description 'Promote to Production' aligns with a state-changing action but adds no extra details about side effects, authentication, or what happens if the version is already in production. It provides no behavioral context beyond 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?

While extremely brief, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure, no front-loading of critical information, and every word is generic. It does not earn its place because it carries almost no informational value.

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 promotion/publish action with 6 parameters, one required, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does beyond a vague 'promote to production', what parameters to provide, or what the outcome/expectations are. The description is far from complete.

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 67% (below 80%), so the description must compensate. It does not mention any parameters or their meaning. The required versionId has no schema description and the tool description offers no hints. This fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Promote to Production' states a verb and a target, but it is vague about what is being promoted. It does not mention agents or versions, which the tool name implies. It is nearly a paraphrase of the tool name and does not distinguish this from other publish/promote tools in the sibling list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of required inputs like versionId, and no context about the promotion workflow. The description provides zero usage direction.

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