alcove_idea_promote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool promotes an idea into a task but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the original idea is archived, deleted, or remains). For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structured details or front-loading of key information. Every word is necessary, but the content is insufficient for the tool's complexity (6 parameters).

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?

Given 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (unknown content), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to clarify parameter usage, behavioral effects, or return value. The tool's role in the workflow (idea lifecycle) could be better contextualized.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameter. Essential parameters like idea_id are not mentioned, nor are optional ones like due, notes, or priority. The agent receives no guidance on how to set these fields beyond the schema's type/default values.

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 'Promote an idea into a concrete task' clearly identifies the action (promote) and the resource transition (idea to task). It is specific and distinct from adding an idea or creating a task directly, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like alcove_task_add or alcove_idea_add. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., idea must exist) or when not to use it. Minimal context for decision-making.

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