Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-promoteToLongTerm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core state transition and consequences like 'permanent retention' and 'enhanced discoverability', but does not explain whether the candidate status is removed, if the operation is reversible, or any authorization requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and every word adds value. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple state-transition tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the lifecycle rationale, expected outcome, and tagging context. Minor omissions like idempotency or handling of non-candidate notes do not significantly impact completeness.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (noteId and additionalTags) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'promote' and clearly identifies the resource ('candidate note') and its target state ('long-term memory'), set within the Zettelkasten lifecycle. This distinguishes it from siblings like archiveNote or autoManageNotes, which have different purposes.

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 provides a clear condition for when to use the tool: 'Moves frequently accessed notes' from candidate to long-term status. It implies the use case but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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