promote_learning

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one side effect (marks source as promoted) but says nothing about the required approver's role, whether promotion is reversible, permission/auth needs, or what 'provenance' actually records. For a mutation tool this leaves major gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the core action and appends the side effect, with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, four undocumented parameters (three required), and an unaddressed sibling (promote_repo_learning) is inadequately covered. An agent cannot confidently supply channel/approver or predict the promotion's consequences from this text.

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?

All 4 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies 'target' (target knowledge location) and 'id' (bus item), while giving no meaning for 'channel' or 'approver', which are both required. The required approver gate is especially important and unexplained.

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 (promote) and resource (bus item) moving to a target knowledge location, which is reasonably distinct from the sibling promote_repo_learning's repo scope. However it never names that sibling to disambiguate the two, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as publish_bus_item or promote_repo_learning. The agent must guess when promotion is appropriate versus publishing or syncing. No exclusions or context provided.

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