Promote Node To Note

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the note is pre-filled with graph neighbors and written as status:'assumed' (skeleton, not verified), which is important behavioral context. It doesn't cover permissions or return value, though an output schema exists.

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?

Compact, front-loaded with the core action and destination, followed by behavioral caveat and usage note. No filler, but slightly dense with inline references.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation tool without annotations, the description covers key behavior (auto-fill, assumed status) and usage restraint, but leaves parameter meanings vague and doesn't state permissions or side effects on the graph.

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% for 4 parameters, so the schema does not describe them. Description only implicitly names node (graph node) and body (prose, implied not verified). vault, extra_frontmatter, and body semantics are not explained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (materialize/promote) and resource (graph node -> curated note) with precise output location (20-Knowledge/codebase/{files,symbols,features}). Clearly distinguishable from write_note (writing prose) and upsert_node (graph mutation).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'promote sparingly, per Instructions.md Sec.12: not every file earns a note.' Gives a usage posture but doesn't name a direct alternative or a when-not condition beyond scarcity.

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