promote_sketch

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight by enumerating the compound side effects — fork, canvas upscale, compositionLevel update, series membership — which the schema does not reveal. It stops short of saying whether the source sketch is left intact, whether an ID is returned, or what permissions/rate limits apply.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with an em-dash list of effects; zero filler and the action leads. The size matches the tool's complexity.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what a promotion produces (a new sketch? returned ID?) and whether the original is mutated. The effect list is helpful but leaves these questions open.

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 each parameter is already documented in-schema, and the description adds only indirect mapping (fork→sketchId, series→seriesId). It says nothing about toStage semantics, the auto-generated newId/title defaults, or the agent/model params, 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?

States a specific verb (promote) and resource (sketch) plus the concrete effects: fork, upscale canvas, update compositionLevel, add to series. An agent can distinguish this from fork_sketch or update_sketch by the compound workflow-stage framing, though the description says 'next' stage while toStage accepts any of four enums.

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 workflow-stage framing implies when to use it, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over fork_sketch + update_sketch, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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