quipu_import_promote

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

Beyond the destructive and open-world annotations, it discloses the gating constraint, that quarantine/resolution review cannot be bypassed, how target_graph scopes replacement only to the share's subjects, and that retire_from moves subjects out in the same transaction. The dry_run behavior is also explicit: report intended assert/replace/retire actions and write nothing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and gating, followed by behavioral constraints and parameter-specific effects. Every clause adds operational information with no filler.

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 destructive, gated mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential safety constraints, graph scoping, retirement transaction, and dry-run reporting. It still omits actor semantics and normal return/failure signaling, leaving minor gaps for an agent composing it with siblings.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden; it clearly explains target_graph, retire_from, and dry_run semantics, including the transactional coupling. It leaves actor undocumented and only implicitly defines share_id as the staged share identifier.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Promote a staged share') and scopes it to gated promotions, which separates it from generic import or knot-promotion siblings without relying on the 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?

Explains the prerequisite clearly: only promote when existing promotion gates permit it, and it explicitly says quarantine or resolution review is not bypassed. It does not name a specific alternative sibling to use when those blockers exist, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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