env_promote

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a full disk copy, takes minutes, consumes a golden's disk space, shuts the environment down, leaves it in place, and creates a durable artifact only the user can remove. This is rich and actionable context.

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?

Four sentences, all substantive, with the core action first followed by cost, side effects, and usage guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the operation's purpose, resource cost, duration, shutdown behavior, persistence, lifecycle, and cleanup path. Combined with the output schema, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and set expectations with the user.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of each parameter (the environment's current state becomes the image) but adds limited detail beyond the schema's own parameter 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 the specific operation: flatten an environment's current state into a reusable golden image for env_fork. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming env_fork and env_rm and explaining the golden-image role.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to promote ('only when the user wants the machine kept'), notes the durable result, and points to env_rm for cleanup. It also identifies that the promoted image becomes the source for env_fork, giving clear selection guidance.

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