promote_idea

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the always-draft status constraint ('agents cannot publish directly') and the side effect of linking the original idea via ideas.promoted_to. It omits what happens if the idea was already promoted, whether the idea is consumed/archived, or what identifier is returned.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero filler, with the identity and the draft-only constraint front-loaded before the forward workflow pointers. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers a mutation tool's lifecycle well: what it creates, the status it lands in, the link it establishes, and where it sits in the pipeline. With no output schema and no annotations, it could still say what is returned (e.g., the new content ID) so an agent can chain update_content, but overall this is close to 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 description coverage is 100% across all 11 parameters, so the schema already documents hook, cta, core_message, funnel_stage, etc. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema baseline, so a 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Promote an idea to a draft Content item' — and places it in a named pipeline step (2→3, Discover → Create). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling create_content and create_idea without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the workflow context ('Pipeline step 2→3') and names the follow-on tools in order: update_content then create_variant (step 4). This is actionable routing guidance rather than passive description.

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