promote_unit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Apply' without describing side effects, reversibility, permissions, or other behavioral traits. This lack of context beyond the action itself leaves the agent unaware of potential consequences.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence for the purpose and a short list for arguments. Every sentence provides value: the first states the action, the second explains parameters, and the third gives usage guidance. No redundant words or filler.

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 only two parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter details, and prerequisite tool. However, it could mention that this is a mutation (state-changing) operation.

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 provides zero description for parameters (0% coverage), but the description explicitly explains that 'unit_id' is a composite ID from 'get_units' output and provides two examples for 'promotion_type' (e.g., PROMOTION_BATTLECRY, PROMOTION_TORTOISE). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Apply a promotion to a unit.' Using a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('promotion to a unit'), it precisely defines the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'promote_governor' by the context of units and references the prerequisite 'get_unit_promotions'.

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 instruction 'Use get_unit_promotions first to see available options' provides clear guidance on the prerequisite step for using this tool. This tells the agent when to use it (after checking options) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implied get_unit_promotions.

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