promote_repo_learning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('promote') but says nothing about whether the operation is reversible, what permissions the required 'approver' implies, or what side effects occur on the source item. The mention of 'provenance' hints at metadata being recorded but is too thin to count as disclosure.

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 sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but its brevity is under-specification rather than earned conciseness given the complexity of the operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot reliably invoke it without guessing at parameter meanings and the approval model.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The key question of what 'channel', 'approver', and 'target_path' mean or how they interact is left entirely unanswered.

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 states a verb ('Promote') and a resource ('a repo bus item') with a destination of sorts ('canonical or learned location'), which is more than a tautology but still vague about what a 'repo bus item' or 'canonical/learned location' actually is. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling promote_learning, which an agent would have to disambiguate on its own.

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 preconditions, and no mention of the closely named sibling promote_learning or how the two differ. The agent is left to infer the selection context entirely.

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