promote_vop_parameters

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely drops it. 'Promote' implies a mutation of the node's interface, but the description does not say whether the operation is reversible, what it modifies on the existing network, whether it requires an unlocked HDA or edit permissions, or what happens to inputs already exposed as parameters.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally sound. Its brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency, since almost nothing an agent needs is present.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented free-form array parameter, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine valid item structure, side effects, or expected result from this description.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'promotions' parameter, and the description only loosely implies it holds VOP inputs. It gives no indication that the array items are free-form objects (additionalProperties: true) or what keys those objects should carry, so an agent has no basis for constructing a valid call.

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 names a specific verb (promote) and a specific resource transformation (VOP inputs to parameters), which is more than a tautology. However, 'promote' and 'VOP inputs' are domain jargon left unexplained, and nothing distinguishes this from parameter-related siblings such as create_spare_parameters or set_parameters.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisites, no preconditions on the network state, and no indication of when an agent should choose this over create_spare_parameters or set_parameters. The single sentence states an effect but gives no selection context.

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