memory.promote

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=true, which tells the agent that repeated calls are safe but not whether this is a read or write. The description doesn't say whether originals are copied or removed from the session, whether writing to long-term memory requires specific permissions or a live session, or what the tool returns. For what is clearly a mutation, that leaves the behavioral profile largely undocumented.

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 fully packed with specifics. Nothing is wasted and nothing is repetitive.

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?

Simple zero-parameter tool and no output schema, so the description needs only to say what it promotes and where, which it does. The remaining gap is scope: it's unclear whether it promotes everything from the current session or only items already flagged for promotion.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which earns the baseline 4. The description does useful work by naming what gets promoted, since with no input arguments the agent otherwise has no idea what this tool operates on.

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?

A specific verb ('promote') with an explicitly enumerated source ('session decisions, resolved blockers and completed tasks') and a destination ('long-term memory'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings such as memory.put and session.checkpoint by naming the item types it acts on, though it never names or contrasts those alternatives directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the item types: promote after blockers are resolved or tasks completed. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this rather than memory.put, memory.search, or context.summarize, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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