promote_skill_recommendation

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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. It discloses what gets written (canonical content), the status change to active, the recorded promotion metadata, the rejection of repeated promotion, and the fact that targets alone do not trigger native sync.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then sequences alternatives, prerequisites, and side effects efficiently. It is slightly dense and repeats the targets/native-sync point already in the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need little elaboration, and the description still enumerates them briefly. Prerequisites, mutation side effects, rejection behavior, and the follow-up sync step are all covered for a state-changing promotion tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the recommendation_id eligibility rule and the targets sync caveat. The description mostly restates that same guidance, adding no extra syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: promote a proposed, not previously promoted latent recommendation into a canonical Agent Skill. It also scopes the input by saying it must be a latent recommendation, distinguishing it from create_skill, publish_skill, and generate_skill.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing (use after recommend_skills), names the alternatives with the conditions that select them (propose_skill + generate_skill for approval/generation, publish_skill for drafts), and adds a prerequisite (initialized memory for project-scoped promotion) plus a required follow-up (sync_skills for native install).

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