waypath_promote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a write operation ('WRITE:'), creates a candidate in a local SQLite queue, and requires human or authorized agent review. It does not mention edge cases like duplicate detection, but the core behavior is transparent. A minor gap for a score of 5.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value. Starts with an action label ('WRITE:'), then explains the asynchronous nature, then provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the availability of sibling tools, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavior. A minor omission is what the tool returns (e.g., candidate ID), but the context suggests the agent can infer it from the schema or review queue. Highly adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that the subject is stored verbatim and shown to the reviewer, which adds some value beyond the schema's constraints but is not essential. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 it creates a candidate row in a review queue for promotion, not an immediate promotion. It uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('candidate for promotion'), and distinguishes from siblings like waypath_review and waypath_review_queue by name.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('persist a decision, preference, or fact') and when not ('does NOT promote immediately'), and directs to sibling tools (waypath_review_queue to list, waypath_review to act). This provides excellent guidance for an agent.

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