kb_promote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool updates in place, keeps content and ID unchanged, and returns either {id, domain} or {error: not_found}. This covers key behavioral traits, though it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting or permission requirements.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds either example, behavior, return value, or prerequisite. There is no padding, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and error case. It also covers prerequisites and the state-update behavior. However, it doesn't elaborate on edge cases like invalid domains or mapping failures, and since parameter semantics are under-served, it falls short of full completeness for a 3-required-param mutation tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate fully. It mentions 'domain' conceptually and implies atom_id via 'atom', but never explains app_id. With all three parameters required and no schema descriptions, the agent has to infer the meaning of app_id from context, which is a significant gap.

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 tool's action: 'Move an existing knowledge atom to a different domain' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides an example and distinguishes from sibling tools like nest_promote and gap_promote by focusing on knowledge atoms, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives context for when to use the tool ('lift a journal entry into a topical domain once it proves durable') and states a prerequisite ('Requires a confirmed knowledge schema mapping'). However, it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or say when not to use it, so it's clear but not fully exclusionary.

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