mind_quarantine_promote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the effect (entry becomes live/ordinary) and the crucial lifecycle fact that the tool is removed in v2.0, but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or behavior when the id is missing or already promoted. Useful context, but incomplete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 deprecation and replacement are front-loaded, which is the right priority for an agent deciding whether to call it. The nested parenthetical is slightly awkward but the whole thing is short and every clause (deprecation, effect, alternative path) earns its place.

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 single-parameter, deprecated tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and that it should migrate to the replacement. Missing only edge-case behavior, which is minor given the deprecation.

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 the single 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'by id' implies the identifier refers to a quarantined entry but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that bare hint. Minimal compensation 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 and resource: 'Explicitly promote a quarantined entry to ordinary memory by id.' An agent immediately knows this moves an entry out of quarantine into normal memory, distinct from siblings like mind_quarantine_list or mind_restore. The deprecation banner is front-loaded rather than obscuring the purpose.

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?

Explicitly names the replacement (mind_quarantine(action="promote")), states removal in v2.0, and contrasts the manual path against the automatic one (re-asserting via mind_ingest). It even gives the selecting condition: 'use this when you know the entry should be live without re-ingesting.' This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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