memory_sketch_promote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses side effects (sketch association removed, sketch marked promoted, audit entries recorded), failure modes ('missing or non-active sketches fail'), the empty-input case, and the return shape {success,promotedIds}. It does not state required permissions or whether the promotion can be undone, which are the notable remaining gaps.

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 mechanism, then adds failure and return details, all in a compact block with little waste. The single long run-on sentence is dense but every clause contributes.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description supplies the return shape, the failure conditions, and the empty-input behavior, so an agent can call it correctly without further 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only restates that the optional project overrides the project of promoted actions. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the semantic heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (promote), a specific resource (actions of an active sketchId) and the mechanism (removing their sketch association, becoming regular work items). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling memory_action_create, which it explicitly names.

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 an explicit trigger ('use after exploratory work is accepted') and names the alternative path with its selecting condition ('memory_action_create directly creates regular work items'). Nothing about when to choose this tool is left to inference.

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