vault_promote

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

The description discloses that promotion is 'semi-destructive' and that source captures 'cannot be re-promoted,' which is important behavioral context. However, this directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint: false, which implies the tool is not destructive. This contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement, an actions block, and a workflow. However, the actions block redundantly restates the schema's parameters and types, which is unnecessary. The workflow section is valuable but the duplication makes it slightly less concise.

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?

The description covers the essential workflow and the semi-destructive nature of the operation, which is good. However, with no output schema, it does not describe return values or success/failure behavior. It also doesn't mention any error handling or prerequisites beyond calling vault_read, leaving some gaps.

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 description repeats the parameter list from the schema with types and defaults, but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the names suggest. The workflow mentions generating title, summary, domain, content, confidence, and tags, providing some context, but parameters like auto_link and aliases are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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's function: 'Promote one or more captures into a structured note.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on promotion of existing captures into notes, while siblings like vault_capture and vault_read handle capture and reading. The 'Actions' section further clarifies the single available 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 provides a detailed WORKFLOW section that explicitly instructs Claude to call vault_read first, then synthesize and confirm with the user before promoting. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond the workflow.

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