promote_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses core behaviors: creates thread, attaches notes, routes future tagged notes. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Four sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives context, then Args section. Front-loaded with key action. Every sentence 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?

No output schema, but description explains preconditions, action, and parameter sources. References sibling tool for eligibility. Complete for a mutation tool with clear effects.

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 Args section explains both parameters beyond the schema: entity is 'Id of the entity from list_entities' and stream is 'Id of the parent stream'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this addition is essential and well-done.

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 verb 'promote' and the resource 'recurring entity' into its own thread under a stream. It also mentions a precondition (entity must be promotable, referencing sibling tool list_entities), which distinguishes it from other tools like create_stream or edit_entity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Propose this (with the user's OK) once an entity is promotable (see list_entities).' It explains the effect and references a sibling tool for checking status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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