tool_promote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool does not edit the MCP server, but omits key behaviors such as whether it overwrites existing memory, required permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. The smoke test is mentioned but not explained.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, nested objects), more detailed information would be justified without sacrificing conciseness if structured well.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description fails to explain return values, error handling, preconditions, or postconditions. The purpose is clear but the description is fundamentally incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema alone provides no explanations. The description does not elaborate on any parameter, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'code', 'spec', 'input_payload', etc. This severely hinders correct invocation.

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 saves a validated extraction recipe as reusable memory and explicitly says it does not edit the MCP server. The verb 'save' and resource 'extraction recipe as reusable memory' are specific. However, it does not directly differentiate from sibling tools like recipe_registry or tool_spec_propose, which might have overlapping purposes.

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 implies usage after validation and mentions an optional smoke test but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no statement of prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or references to sibling tools.

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