nexus_promote_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Promote') which implies a mutation, but doesn't describe what 'promote' entails (e.g., changes concept status, creates linked project, requires specific permissions), potential side effects (e.g., concept becomes read-only after promotion), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'promote' means operationally, what the expected outcome is (e.g., returns project ID, modifies concept status), or error conditions. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100%, with both parameters ('conceptId' and 'projectName') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of conceptId, when to use projectName override). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Promote') and the target resource ('a concept to a full project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexus_create_project' or 'nexus_update_concept', which could have overlapping functionality in project creation or concept modification contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., concept must exist, be in a draft state), exclusions (e.g., cannot promote already promoted concepts), or comparisons to siblings like 'nexus_create_project' (which might create projects from scratch) or 'nexus_update_concept' (which might modify concepts without promotion).

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