ateam_github_promote

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses merging behavior, auto-tag format (safe-YYYY-MM-DD-NNN), dry_run behavior (shows diff without merging), and conflict response (409). No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and tag format. Workflow order is given. Details on dry_run and merge conflict are concise. No redundant sentences.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return behavior (diff on dry_run, 409 on conflict). Covers auto-tag naming, workflow, and conflict resolution. Complete for a promote/merge tool.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds behavioral context beyond schema: dry_run returns diff, skip_tag skips tagging, and merge conflict returns 409. However, schema already provides basic descriptions, so not a 5.

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 'SHIP DEV TO PROD. Merges the `dev` branch into `main` and auto-tags...', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ateam_github_patch (writes to dev) and ateam_build_and_run (deploys main) by outlining the workflow order.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after testing your dev work, when you're ready to deploy changes to production.' Provides a workflow with sibling tools and mentions dry_run to preview. Also notes merge conflict handling and manual resolution.

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