prufa_promote_gremlin_path

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the result is a draft (not final), returns specific fields (flow_id, status, review_url), and explains idempotency key behavior. No contradictory claims.

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?

Two efficient sentences. First sentence front-loads purpose and resource. Second sentence adds critical behavioral context (draft status, return values, [Pro] tag). No filler.

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?

Covers return format and idempotency. Lacks mention of error cases or prerequisites (e.g., existence of gremlin report). However, given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete.

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 100% and description adds meaning: path_index is zero-based, share_token is public share token, idempotency_key's retry safety explanation adds value beyond schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states the tool imports a reproduced gremlin path (by its index) as a DRAFT flow. The verb 'import' and resource 'gremlin path' are specific, and the draft status distinguishes it from sibling tools like prufa_confirm_flow or prufa_create_flow.

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?

Explains when to use (import a reproduced path as draft) and what comes next (review + confirmation required). It implies the need for a subsequent confirmation step, but does not explicitly list alternatives or contexts where this tool should be avoided.

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