promotion_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool blocks certain inputs and never overwrites the operator's canonical loop file. However, it does not describe side effects of a successful promotion, such as state changes or notifications, which would be helpful for full transparency.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose, conditions, behavioral note). Minor room for improvement: structuring conditions more clearly could aid readability, 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 no output schema, 2 required parameters with zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and return value information. The agent cannot confidently invoke the tool without understanding what 'runId' and 'hypothesisId' refer to.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain the meaning or expected format of 'runId' or 'hypothesisId', leaving the agent to guess. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide parameter semantics.

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.' The verb 'request' and resource 'promotion of a hypothesis' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'test_hypothesis' (testing) and 'benchmark_propose' (proposing) by focusing on promotion.

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 explicit conditions for use: requires a tool-measured, reverified full test on the frozen benchmark that moves the quality/cost frontier past threshold. It also states what is blocked (old green unit tests without score matrix, model-reported metrics, below-threshold results). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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