promote_memory

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

Description discloses the behavioral trait of changing memory from project-scoped to global. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does it adequately, though it doesn't mention potential side effects like whether the original memory remains.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the action and purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and scope change. Could mention potential prerequisites like memory ownership, but overall complete.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter. The tool description adds no extra detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Description clearly states the action (promote) and resource (memory) with the scope change from project to global. It distinguishes itself from sibling memory tools like save_memory or delete_memory.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when a discovered preference or pattern should be universal. Gives concrete examples. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is sufficient.

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