Metis — Promote Basket Item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses one behavioral trait (refuses private items). Missing details such as permissions, reversibility, and overwrite behavior, leaving significant 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?

The description is extremely concise: three sentences plus arg list, front-loaded with the action verb, and no wasted words.

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 the absence of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description provides the core action and a key constraint. However, it lacks details on error handling, return values, and collision behavior, assuming the output schema covers return. Adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds clear meaning beyond schema titles: defines source as 'absolute path to the file in basket/' and target as 'absolute destination path (file or folder).' This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('move') and the resource ('basket item to stable project folder'). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_basket and scan_folder_for_intent by focusing on promotion, but does not explicitly distinguish itself.

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 notes that it refuses to touch basket/private/ items, providing a usage constraint. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or give explicit prerequisites.

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