art.asset.promote

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'promote... to become the canonical version' without disclosing side effects such as replacing the current version, authorization requirements, or reversibility. The mutation behavior is implied but not detailed.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It lacks structure or additional context beyond the bare statement.

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?

Given 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the promotion workflow, success criteria, error handling, or implications for the asset's version history. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

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%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds no extra meaning, such as relationships between parameters or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 action (promote) and the object (approved candidate to become canonical version). It is specific and uses a distinct verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like art.asset.approve or art.asset.rollback.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never states prerequisites like having an approval record or that it should follow approval. The term 'approved candidate' implies it, but no explicit when/when-not is provided.

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