promote_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a write action ('Apply') but does not disclose effects (e.g., consumes promotion charge, permanence) or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is minimal.

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 concise (4 lines) and well-structured with clear bullet-like listing of arguments. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics adequately. It could mention the output schema's role, but the guidelines state that's not required. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining unit_id as coming from get_units output and provides examples for promotion_type. It adds value beyond the raw schema, though it could specify the format of the composite ID.

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 verb 'Apply' and the resource 'promotion to a unit', and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_unit_promotions (which lists options) and upgrade_unit (different action).

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 explicitly says 'Use get_unit_promotions first to see available options', providing a prerequisite and context for when to use this tool. It also implies unit_id comes from get_units, but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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