ateam_github_promote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: merges dev→main, auto-tags HEAD, returns 409 on conflict, supports dry_run and skip_tag. It could mention idempotency or success response format, but the existing detail is strong.

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 tightly written: two sentences convey purpose and workflow, then lists steps and options. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with key action.

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 no output schema, the description covers error handling (409 on conflict), optional behaviors (dry_run, skip_tag), and the workflow sequence. It lacks an explicit statement of what a successful invocation returns (e.g., confirmation or tag name), but the context is largely complete for an experienced developer.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: labels are 'human-readable for the auto-tag', dry_run 'show the diff without merging', skip_tag 'merge without creating an auto-tag'. It effectively explains the why and how of each parameter.

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 explicitly: 'SHIP DEV TO PROD. Merges the dev branch into main and auto-tags...' This clearly identifies the action (merge) and resource (dev to main), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ateam_github_patch and ateam_github_rollback via the workflow.

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?

Guidelines are explicit: 'Use after testing your dev work, when you're ready to deploy changes to production.' It also provides when not to use: on merge conflict, resolve manually. Additionally, it offers the alternative dry_run mode and positions the tool in a workflow sequence (patch → promote → build_and_run).

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