promotion_request

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important constraints: blocking certain inputs and never overwriting a file. However, it does not describe failure modes, success effects, or whether the tool creates or modifies resources beyond promotion status. This is adequate but could be richer.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating action, listing requirements, noting a constraint. It is relatively concise with no redundancy. However, it could be more tightly structured by grouping conditions before behaviors, but overall it is 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 tool has 2 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and prerequisites but lacks parameter explanations and return value information. It is moderately complete for a promotion request tool but would benefit from explaining what happens on success or failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, it does not explain what 'runId' or 'hypothesisId' represent or how they relate to the precondition (e.g., which run or hypothesis is being promoted). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the purpose.

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 tool's purpose: 'Request promotion of a hypothesis to internal champion.' It specifies the required condition (tool-measured, reverified full test on frozen benchmark pushing the frontier past threshold) and distinguishes itself by blocking old green unit tests without score matrix, ensuring the tool is used for a specific, high-quality promotion scenario.

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 clear when-to-use guidance by listing prerequisites (specific test type and result threshold) and exclusions (old green unit tests, model-reported metrics, below-threshold results). It also notes it never overwrites the operator's canonical loop file. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context of sibling tools and the clear conditions make usage guidelines effective.

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