promote_sandbox_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it details auth header requirements (X-API-KEY or AIDRESS_API_KEY), enumerates exactly which fields are copied and which are never moved, and notes that every promotion is logged. This is rich behavioral disclosure covering side effects, constraints, and auditing.

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 well-organized into paragraphs covering action/auth, pairing requirement, field movement lists, logging, and a recommendation. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, and the first sentence immediately states the core purpose.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects (including what is preserved), auth requirements, logging, a recommended prior step, and the return payload. No critical context is 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?

The input schema has zero descriptions and simple string IDs, so the description must add meaning. It explains that sandbox_agent_id is the source and real_agent_id is the target, and that they must be a confirmed pair. It also lists the fields that will be copied, giving functional context to what the parameters influence.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Push a sandbox agent's tested config onto its paired live agent,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as the promotion step in a sandbox-to-live workflow, and later references preview_sandbox_match as a prior step, further clarifying its unique role.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite (confirmed pairing via register_agent clone_from_agent_id) and warns that unrelated pairs are rejected with 403. It recommends calling preview_sandbox_match first, giving a clear alternative/lead-in. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other config-editing tools like update_agent, so it falls short of complete 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.