Promote discovery

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the copy carries origin provenance, arrives as proposed, and that the target project's state is written. This adds meaningful behavioral context about side effects. It aligns with the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations.

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?

One sentence front-loaded with the verb and object, with no filler. The parenthetical destination detail and the revalidate contrast both contribute essential information without bloating the description.

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 output schema, this covers the core action, destination semantics, provenance, and state side effect. It could elaborate on what 'proposed' means for downstream approval, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, including the Y-NN format for id and the target project for 'to'. The description mostly restates the destination concept without adding new format or constraint details. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Copy a Discovery into another project'. It also names the destination form and the key side effect, distinguishing it from revalidate. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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 gives a clear use case: promoting/copying a Discovery across projects. It explicitly names revalidate as the alternative and explains the behavioral difference, which is enough to route an agent correctly. It does not cover every possible sibling, but it addresses the most relevant one.

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