run_promote

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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-idempotent/not-readOnly, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: source memories are archived to L0 rather than deleted (mitigating the destructive hint), and agent auth is required when a registered key exists. It also discloses the return payload shape. Missing only cost/latency or rollback details, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

Three compact sentences, with the pipeline semantics front-loaded, then safety behavior, then return value. Every sentence adds distinct information and none repeats the name or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states what the return contains (promoted/consolidated/merged/source counts), which covers the main gap. Slightly incomplete on preconditions and failure modes for a mutating pipeline, but well beyond adequate overall.

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 defaults for min_l1 (3) and min_l2 (2) and the api_key requirement are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond echoing the auth requirement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (run) and resource (promote pipeline) and spells out the two-stage transformation: L1 atomics → L2 scenario summaries, stable L2 → L3 persona rules, with sources archived to L0. This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from run_dedup or run_decay without inspecting schemas.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description of what the pipeline does, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., that L1 must exist first, or that run_dedup should precede it). The agent must infer timing and ordering.

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