promote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses all behavioral traits: promotion conditions, scope transitions, readership changes, the need for org_content for cross-project restatement, the fallback response (refusal with tells and suggested draft), and the effect of force and environment variables (CAMBIUM_ORG_PR). This is highly transparent.

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 lengthy and dense, containing multiple paragraphs with example scenarios and conditional logic. While it is well-organized and covers necessary details, it could be more concise. For instance, the first sentence 'Graduate knowledge up a scope as it earns trust — the compound-growth step.' is verbose. A tighter rewrite would improve score.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple promotion paths, thresholds, environment variables, PR vs direct push, org_content requirement), the description covers every aspect. It explains the escalation process, failure modes, and side effects. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description references it indirectly (direct push vs pull request). No gaps remain.

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 0%, yet the description adds rich meaning to each parameter: force overrides conditions, item_id specifies the item, to_scope sets target scope, org_content provides the restated body. It explains how org_content becomes the org body and preserves original as 'example'. Without any schema help, the description fully compensates.

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 tool's purpose: graduate knowledge up a scope (local->team->org) as trust earns. It explains the verb 'promote' and the resource (knowledge items). However, the phrasing is somewhat convoluted (e.g., 'compound-growth step'), and it could be more straightforward. It distinguishes between usage without arguments (scan and promote all) and with item_id (single item). Siblings like 'generalize' or 'distill' are not explicitly differentiated, but the scope promotion is unique.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios: with no arguments to promote all qualifying local items, with item_id to promote one level, and with to_scope to target org. It explains thresholds (recalls/endorsements) and when force is needed. It also covers failure modes (refusal when org_content is missing) and suggests alternatives (review promotions, force). The guidelines are comprehensive and actionable.

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