promote_constraint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or what happens to existing constraints in target projects. The minimal description fails to convey important behavioral traits.

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 too terse. It front-loads the action but omits critical details, trading brevity for completeness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the promotion mechanism, impact on target projects, or any side effects. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 does not explain the parameters at all, despite 0% schema description coverage. The schema shows constraint_id required and target_projects optional, but the description contradicts the schema by implying promotion to 'all' projects. No parameter semantics added.

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 'promote' and the resource 'constraint', and specifies the scope 'from this project to all other registered projects'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_constraints or resolve_contradiction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to promote vs. simply retrieving or resolving constraints. It does not mention prerequisites or conditions.

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