promote_prompt

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructiveness, and the description adds that it creates or updates the target and returns version IDs. However, given openWorldHint true, the description does not disclose potential side effects or required permissions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise—just two sentences—with no extraneous information. It front-loads the primary action and then provides usage guidance, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool's 5 parameters and mutation nature, the description covers core purpose, usage context, and return values. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but the presence of a (presumed) output schema reduces the need for full detail. Overall, it is fairly complete for the use case.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra parameter-level detail. It mentions return values (version IDs) but not parameter specifics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 action: copy a prompt between environments and auto-create/update the target. It explicitly distinguishes itself by mentioning staged releases and synchronization without manual edits, which sets it apart from siblings like create_prompt, update_prompt, and migrate_prompt.

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 clear when-to-use context: for staged releases when automated synchronization is desired. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like migrate_prompt, which is present among siblings.

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