whodb_platform_promote_file_to_dataset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a default preview mode that returns a confirmation token and a two-phase confirm gate. It stops short of describing what the confirm-mode call does differently.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The workspace sentence largely restates what the schema already says, which is the only mild 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical pre-call and confirmation flow an agent needs. It is slightly thin on what a non-preview (confirmed) invocation returns or what happens to the source file after promotion.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including the nested column_map and workspace fields; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only a source hint for column_map (from file_inspect) and restates the workspace targeting semantics already present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (promote) and resource (hosted project file → dataset), which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling whodb_platform_create_dataset, so an agent must infer that this operates on an existing hosted file while create_dataset starts fresh.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: call whodb_platform_file_inspect first to infer column_map, and hold whodb_platform_confirm until the user approves the preview. It lacks an explicit 'when to use this vs create_dataset' statement, but the ordering and gating guidance is strong.

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