invariance_dna_promote_edge_candidate

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the minimal annotations: idempotency with already_promoted=true, a 422 failure mode, and dry_run semantics that preview without writing. This clearly communicates that the operation writes durable state while being safe to retry.

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?

Three dense sentences convey the core action, prerequisites, failure condition, idempotency, and dry_run option with no filler. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, failure modes, idempotent behavior, and dry_run. It tells the agent what to expect on re-promotion and preview, though the normal success response format is not fully described.

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 the schema already documents both id and dry_run. The description reinforces dry_run behavior ('preview the would-be link without writing') but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action ('Promote an accepted DNA edge candidate into a durable semantic link') with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from related DNA candidate tools by focusing on the promote step rather than accept/reject/list.

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 gives explicit preconditions for when the tool can be used: candidate must be accepted, carry a semantic_similarity signal, and have at least two evidence chunks. It implies a workflow order (accept before promote) and mentions dry_run for preview, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for rejection or listing.

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