promote_rule

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden and does it well: it names the destructive side effect (deprecation of the original in two stores), the audit side effect (rule_history entry), the access level ('write'), and explicitly bounds the operation by saying the new-scope rule is NOT created. Remaining gaps are permission requirements and reversibility of the promotion.

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-loaded with the action and its effects in the first two sentences, followed by short Access level and Returns lines. Slightly redundant since an output schema already exists, but nothing is padded or wasteful.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers scope, side effects, access level, and explicitly excludes the assumed creation of the new-scope rule. The Returns line duplicates the output schema, and no guidance is given on scope validity or error conditions, so it is strong but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, with both parameters documented as the RN-* rule id and the destination scope, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's framing ('promote to a more general scope') adds directional context but no syntax, id format, or scope-resolution guidance 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 (promote) and resource (rule to a more general scope), then enumerates the concrete effects: original marked deprecated in both SQLite and its source .md file, and a PROMOTED rule_history entry recorded. It also preempts the most likely confusion by stating it does not create the rule in the new scope, which separates it from create_pending_proposal.

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 clear context for the operation's scope: promotion only deprecates the source rule, and creating the rule in the new scope 'requires a separate proposal' — a useful pointer toward the follow-up sibling. It does not state prerequisites explicitly (e.g. which scope relationships are valid, whether approval is needed), so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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