promote_persistent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states one precondition (the persistent volume must already be mounted), which is useful, but says nothing about whether existing drone data is preserved or overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what state the drone ends up in.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The terseness does border on under-specification, but there is no wasted text to trim.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell what the call destroys, whether it is reversible, or what prerequisites beyond the mounted volume apply, and nothing distinguishes it from the surrounding lifecycle tools.

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?

The schema declares drone_id as required but supplies no property documentation, and the description never mentions how the target drone is identified. With schema coverage reported at 100% (trivially, since there are no documented properties) and only one required parameter, this lands at the baseline rather than below it.

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 concrete verb and object ('Move a drone onto an already-mounted persistent data volume'), which tells an agent the operation is a relocation of an existing drone rather than a registration or dispatch. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like register_drone or stage_bundle, and the intent behind 'promote' (what changes for the drone's persistence) is not spelled out.

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 explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many fleet/task siblings. The precondition 'already-mounted' is the only usage signal, and it is buried rather than framed as a selection criterion.

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