self_verify_promote

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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description usefully adds that the default is a dry-run and that confirm=true is required to actually write, which is meaningful beyond the annotations. It does not say what a dry-run returns or whether an existing baseline_key is overwritten.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste: the action comes first and the safe default plus the write opt-in follow immediately.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The remaining gap is the overwrite behavior on an existing baseline_key and what a dry-run reports back, neither of which is covered anywhere.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the most consequential parameter, confirm, by tying it to the dry-run default, which helps the agent avoid an accidental write.

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 concrete verb and resource: promote a saved self-verification loop summary checkpoint to a baseline state key. That is specific enough to distinguish it from state_write or self_verify_candidates, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 dry-run default and the confirm=true escape hatch give the agent clear operational guidance for the write path. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over state_write or self_verify_candidates, nor on preconditions such as checking the source passed its gate first.

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