promote_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: task re-encryption under the target org's key, ownership and membership requirements, and null return on success. It does not mention potential side effects like deletion from the personal org, but the core behavioral traits are well-covered.

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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, mechanism, constraints, and return. No redundant phrases. Information is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand.

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 tool with 2 parameters and a null output, the description covers the main points: purpose, cryptographic operation, ownership prerequisites, and return. It does not specify whether the original task is deleted or error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it clarifies that task_id is the task to promote and target_org_id is the destination org. The description explains 'Moves the task into target_org_id,' giving context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify format or constraints like UUIDs.

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 tool's purpose: 'Promote a personal-org task into a target org.' It specifies the action (promote), resource (task), and context (personal to target org). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_task or merge_task, which have different semantics.

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 prerequisites: 'The caller must own the task in their personal org AND be a member of target_org_id.' It also notes the return value. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the context is clear.

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