promote_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It outlines the pipeline steps but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects like modifying memories. The description implies a multi-step process but lacks details on duration or state changes.

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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and steps, and the second provides the use case. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 2-parameter pipeline tool with no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but omits return values, error states, or preconditions. It mentions 'accumulated preferences' without defining the threshold. While the description is adequate for basic use, a more complete one would clarify outputs and edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: 'optionally auto-accept them' mirrors the auto_accept parameter description. The memory_type parameter is not elaborated further.

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 tool runs the full promotion pipeline, analyzing memories, detecting patterns, generating rule candidates, and optionally auto-accepting them. It specifies the verb 'run' and the resource 'promotion pipeline', and explains the outcome of converting preferences into active rules. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like suggest_rules, which may offer a similar but lighter functionality.

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 includes a usage directive: 'Use this to convert accumulated preferences into active rules.' This provides context but no explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or what alternatives exist. For instance, it does not contrast with suggest_rules, which might be used for only generating suggestions without auto-acceptance.

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