collection_promote_collection_environment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether the original collection is modified or destroyed), permissions required, reversibility, or the exact meaning of 'promotion'. The inclusion of a 'ctx' parameter not present in the schema adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a structured Args/Returns format. However, it includes the extraneous 'ctx' parameter and some redundancy in the Args block, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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 promotion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens to the source collection, whether promotion is destructive, what 'copy_resources' actually does beyond copying, or any prerequisites. The return value is only vaguely described as 'details of the promotion operation'.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains each schema parameter (collection_id, target_environment, copy_resources, workflow_triggers) but introduces an undocumented 'ctx' parameter, which could mislead an agent into passing it. The description of target_environment with allowed values is helpful, but the extra param and vague descriptions of booleans reduce its value.

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 'service collection' to a different environment, making the action specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like collection_delete_collection or collection_create_collection.

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 usage by stating the action, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It doesn't mention that this is for moving collections between environments or that it's the only way to do so.

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