promote_table_to_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (global scope visibility) but omits potential side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. The tool name suggests 'memory' promotion, but the description does not mention memory implications.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the primary action and its effect without wasting words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given this is a simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys the operation. It lacks usage context but is not a complex tool requiring more. The clarity of the core function compensates for omitted edge-case details.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to detail them. It adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation.

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 a specific verb ('promote'), resource ('a CAS table'), and scope ('to global scope'), which distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools. The parenthetical clarifying that it makes the table visible to all sessions removes ambiguity.

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 implies a use case (making a table visible to all sessions) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_castables, get_castable_info). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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