promote_to_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation is a copy (non-destructive) and that the result is committable, which adds context beyond the name. Still, it does not mention potential overwrite behavior, prerequisites, or side effects on the source.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resources, with a brief parenthetical purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids 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 core operation and purpose, but gaps remain: it does not clarify the meaning of 'name', the full range of kinds (preset/trap), or prerequisites for the knowledge directory. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema's coverage, it is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description reinforces the meaning of the 'source' parameter by mapping it to directory names (workspace/ or data/). It does not explain the required 'name' parameter or clarify that 'kind' can be preset/trap despite the schema providing those enums. The description adds modest value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action (copy), the source directories (workspace/ or data/), the destination (knowledge/), and the purpose (commitable for an upstream PR). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool promote_to_workspace, which would target a different destination.

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 clear context: use this when you want to make a pattern available for an upstream PR. It also implies the tool is relevant for workspace/data to knowledge promotion. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like promote_to_workspace or state when not to use it.

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