promote_agent_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'promote/degrade' and 'automatic rules or manual override', indicating mutation behavior, but fails to disclose critical details such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the output schema contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds context about methods (automatic rules or manual override). Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that the tool has 0 parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not cover parameters or return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error conditions) to be fully complete. The current description is adequate but leaves gaps in transparency.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and behavior, which aligns with the schema's completeness.

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 ('promote/degrade') and resource ('pack lifecycle status'), specifying the target states (experimental/candidate/recommended/deprecated). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_agent_packs', 'rank_agent_packs', or 'materialize_recommended_agents', which may have overlapping or related functions.

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 mentioning 'automatic rules over feedback metrics or manual override', suggesting contexts for application. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'rank_agent_packs' for ranking or 'materialize_recommended_agents' for materialization), and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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