gap_promote

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

Despite having no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it will refuse with unconfirmed_schema if the mapping hasn't been confirmed, it requires Postgres, it is gated as a separate permission, and it treats promotion as more consequential than logging/resolving. This goes well beyond a simple write/mutation hint and gives the agent concrete expectations.

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 longer than a minimal two-sentence definition, but every sentence adds a distinct piece of operational context: requirements, gate behavior, storage dependency, and permission model. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then flows logically into constraints and alternatives. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary but well-organized.

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 the complexity, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, validation, infrastructure, permissions, and sibling distinctions. The only notable gap is the absence of success-return behavior or a description of what the operation returns on success, which matters because there is no output schema. Also tags/domain details are omitted, but these are secondary parameters with defaults.

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 must compensate. It does a strong job on answer, sources, and confirmed_by, explaining the non-empty identity requirement and the at-least-one-source constraint. It also indirectly clarifies app_id via the schema-mapping reference. However, tags and domain are not mentioned at all, leaving those parameter semantics entirely to the schema.

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 uses a clear verb+resource framing ('Turn a gap into trusted knowledge') and specifies exactly what the tool accomplishes: promoting a gap into durable, searchable knowledge. It also distinguishes itself from related gap tools by noting gap_log/list/resolve are SOIL-only while promotion targets the knowledge base, and from knowledge_ingest by the permission and gate model.

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 explicit usage guidance: it requires an answer, at least one source, and confirmed_by; it explains the schema-confirmation gate shared with knowledge_ingest; it notes Postgres is required; and it clarifies the permission distinction from gap_write. It also implies when NOT to use it (when schema mapping is unconfirmed or when running SOIL-only).

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