aras_promote_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the AML mechanism and the read-only limitation, implying a mutation. Yet it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or return/error behavior, leaving the agent only partially informed about the operation's behavior.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by a concise implementation note and a read-only warning. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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, no output schema, and three parameters where two are undocumented, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on how to determine itemType and id, what the return value will be, and what error conditions may arise. The example and read-only warning help but do not fill the 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 only 33% (only toState is described). The description does not explain id or itemType at all; the example indirectly suggests itemType could be 'Part' and toState 'Released', but no explicit mapping or usage guidance is given. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Promuove un elemento a un nuovo stato del ciclo di vita') with a concrete example ('Part da Preliminary a Released'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic item operations and even from the sibling aras_release_item by emphasizing promotion to any state, not just release.

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?

Provides contextual hints: it uses AML because OData does not expose transitions, and it is disabled in read-only mode. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like aras_release_item or state that aras_get_lifecycle_state should be used to obtain valid toState values; that hint appears only in the schema parameter description.

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