settle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no new_* fields means name, body, provenance (derived_from) and manual tags are all carried across the tier boundary, and states the type derivation rules. It omits reversibility and any permission/irreversibility caveats for this mutating operation.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the 'settle <name> ALONE IS ENOUGH' rule before elaborating. A few stylistic flourishes ('this is how knowledge hardens') add voice but not operational value, keeping it just shy of maximally tight.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, defaults, type derivation, and tier-vs-layer semantics well. The undocumented `initiative` parameter and absence of any return/reversibility note are the only meaningful 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 80%, so the schema already documents defaults for new_body/new_name/new_type. The description largely restates those defaults and the derivation rules rather than adding new meaning, and the `initiative` parameter is left unexplained in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (promote) and resource (a node) plus the direction of movement (operational tier → archival tier). It explicitly contrasts the concept against the sibling notion of a 'layer' tool, so an agent can tell 'settle' apart from demotion tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('a node that stopped changing') and an explicit exclusion ('Don't demote finished work to a cold layer instead'), clarifying a likely confusion with the `layer` sibling. It falls short of naming the inverse `unsettle` tool or stating prerequisites, so it's strong but not fully routing.

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