promote_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the destructive action ('overwrites the live pipeline config', 'deletes the draft snapshot') and safety mechanism ('A pre-promote snapshot is saved automatically'). This covers key behavioral traits like mutation effects and rollback capability, though it doesn't address permissions or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action and immediate effects, the second explains the safety mechanism. Every sentence adds critical information with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the destructive behavior and automatic backup. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, response format, or prerequisites (e.g., requiring a draft to exist). Given the complexity, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'workflowId' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Promote the draft snapshot to live') and resource ('draft snapshot'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'discard_draft' (which deletes without promoting) and 'restore_snapshot' (which restores previous versions). It precisely defines the operation's scope and outcome.

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 implies usage when a draft is ready to become live, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discard_draft' or 'restore_snapshot'. It mentions the automatic pre-promote snapshot for restoration, which provides some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not directives.

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