Promote Plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool renames files to a specific format, adds to an index, and has a prerequisite (file not already tracked). This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 concise, with three clear sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by the transformation detail and constraint. No superfluous text.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, transformation, and constraints adequately. It could mention return behavior or error states, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that 'name' becomes part of the new filename in YYYYMMDD-{name}.md format and that 'filename' is the source file. This extra context helps the agent understand how parameters are used together.

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 resource ('Claude Code plan file to the Yggdrasil plans index'), and explains the transformation (renaming and indexing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_plans and list_plans by the specific action of promotion.

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 provides a constraint ('Only works on .md files not already tracked in the index'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. It offers partial context but no direct exclusions or alternatives.

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