ddflow_promote_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains the merge/pipeline/landing mechanics, the upstream ordering constraint, and enumerates failure semantics (exit 2 = nothing to promote, exit 3 = refused for unknown environment, already-open promotion, or missing branch). It omits auth/permission requirements and reversibility, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then the ordering constraint, then the exit-code semantics — three dense clauses with no filler. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mechanics, ordering, and error codes well. It stops short of describing permissions or what a successful run returns, but the exit-code contract carries most of the operational information.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by specifying the environment-naming form ('[flow].environments, e.g. pre-production, production') and the downstream ordering rule that governs which env value is valid. It says nothing extra about 'force' or 'as_agent', which are left entirely to 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 ('File a PROMOTION') and resource ('environment branch'), then defines what the operation actually does step by step (merges the upstream branch, runs the pipeline, lands by merge or merge request). An agent can distinguish this from the read-only sibling ddflow_promote_status purely from the text.

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 one-step-downstream rule ('production receives only what the environment before it has') gives important context for when a promotion is valid, but the description never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-call condition. Usage is implied through the semantics rather than stated.

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