athena_hug_promote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses advance rules and prerequisites, and mentions 'skips fail' as a behavioral trait. It does not cover reversibility or side effects, but provides meaningful operational context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Every word adds value: the action, the one-step constraint, the per-transition requirements, and the failure behavior.

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?

Given the complexity of nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core semantic rules (transition paths and prerequisites) and mentions failure handling. It lacks information about return values or side effects, but is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It links target_status to the transition prerequisites (test for TESTED, canonical_authority for CANONICAL), giving meaning to the conditional parameters. It does not explicitly explain impl_id or actor, but they are straightforward identifiers.

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 ('Advance') and resource ('HUG implementation') and clearly states the exact one-step progression. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like athena_hug_fail and athena_hug_invocation by describing the promotion action.

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?

It provides explicit conditions for each transition (CANDIDATE->TESTED requires witnessed test; TESTED->CANONICAL requires authorized ref) and notes 'skips fail', indicating when not to use or expected failure behavior. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear for when this tool applies.

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