promotion_request

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

No annotations provided; description discloses key behaviors: requires tool-measured reverified full test, blocks non-conforming results, and never overwrites canonical loop file. Could add details on idempotency or side effects.

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 meaningful constraint or action. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key requirements.

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?

Covers what the tool does and its constraints well, but lacks parameter explanation and return behavior. No output schema; description does not mention what the agent gets back (e.g., success/failure, new champion ID).

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 has 0% coverage; description does not explain runId or hypothesisId beyond names. With 0% coverage, description should define or provide context for parameters, but it does not.

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 states 'Request promotion of a hypothesis to internal champion' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'loop_next' and 'reverify_run' by detailing unique conditions.

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?

Describes when to use (hypothesis meeting strict criteria) and explicitly blocks old green unit tests without required metrics. Does not mention alternatives like 'reverify_run' or 'test_hypothesis' but context implies sequential use.

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