promote_vop_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses batch atomicity ('Nothing is promoted if any item is wrong'), the refusal of already-wired inputs, single-compile-per-batch behavior, and the exact reply contents per input. It omits permissions and undo/reversibility context, 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences add distinct operational detail without redundancy. It is somewhat dense, but every sentence conveys non-obvious 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?

For a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return-value shape per input, atomicity, and refusal semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. It could be more explicit about side effects on the VOP network or failure diagnostics.

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 0% and the nested item is a bare object, so the description is the only source of field meaning. It documents node_path, input, name, label, kind (with enum values 'parameter'/'constant'/'subnet_input') and use_input_value with defaults, compensating well, though it doesn't specify expected value/type formats.

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 and resource (promote VOP inputs to parameters) and grounds it in a known editor action. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_parameter, get_parameter, or create_spare_parameter, which do not wire Parameter VOPs into a network.

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 is implied by the analogy to the network editor's Promote Parameter and the note that already-wired inputs are refused. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternative tools such as create_spare_parameter for the non-VOP case.

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