appcrane_promote

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: refusal conditions, health-check with auto-revert, different behaviors for github vs managed/upload apps, and owner-only restriction. This provides excellent transparency.

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 extremely concise, using three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and conditions, making it easy to scan.

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 a promotion action with multiple preconditions and behaviors, the description is highly complete. It covers the gated path, health checks, auto-revert, and app type differences. No output schema exists, but the behavioral description compensates adequately.

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?

The only parameter 'slug' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain what 'slug' refers to (e.g., app slug). The description should compensate for the low schema coverage but fails to add semantic meaning to the parameter.

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 verb 'promote' and the specific resource 'current live SANDBOX release to production'. It distinguishes from siblings like appcrane_deploy and appcrane_rollback by specifying the sandbox→prod path and gating conditions.

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 explains when to use the tool (to promote sandbox to production) and provides clear conditions for refusal (sandbox not live or unhealthy, not owner). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, though the context makes the usage clear.

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