promote_tool

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 action type, the prerequisite of a clean approval record, and that irreversible tools are refused. However, it does not mention potential side effects, reversibility of the grant itself, or error behavior when conditions are not met, leaving important behavioral details undisclosed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, the second conveys prerequisites and constraints. There is no redundant or vague language.

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?

The tool is a privileged operation with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and key constraints, but lacks information on return values, failure modes, or the meaning of a 'clean approval record.' This leaves gaps given the absence of other structured 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?

The input schema has two parameters (serverId, toolName) with no descriptions, resulting in 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail. Parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, but no additional meaning or format is provided.

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's action: granting a reversible tool standing permission to run unattended. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_action (which handles pending actions) and revoke_tool (which revokes permissions), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 when to use it (to grant standing permission) and includes prerequisites ('Requires a clean approval record') and a constraint ('Irreversible tools are refused'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to related tools like request_action or approve_action.

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