promote_in_pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions injected gates and dry-run behavior when fabric_client is absent, but it does not disclose side effects of promotion, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens on failure. The mutation aspect is not elaborated, and the dry-run mention is the only safety signal. This is insufficient for a state-changing tool.

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 concise (two sentences) and efficient, but it lacks structure and prioritizes the mechanism (gates, dry-run) over essential user-facing information like parameters and usage. It is appropriately short but under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 five parameters, a complex injection model, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the output schema, or when to use the tool. It mentions gates and dry-run but provides no operational context. The tool appears to be a high-level orchestration, yet the description leaves critical details undefined.

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%, meaning the description provides no explanation for any of the five parameters (items, dry_run, pipeline_id, source_stage, target_stage). It does not even mention them by name. The description only references an injected fabric_client, which is not in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Promote items between Fabric Deployment Pipeline stages.' This distinguishes it from siblings like deploy_to_workspace and plan_change, which target different deployment operations. However, it doesn't specify what 'items' are or what stage promotion entails, so it's slightly generic but still clear.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions built-in gates wrapping other tools but doesn't explain when to invoke promote_in_pipeline directly or when to use those sub-tools. No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving usage ambiguous.

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