promote_table_to_memory

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions the tool is idempotent (which aligns with the idempotentHint annotation), but also explains the specific scope (global visibility to all sessions) and that it uses the casManagement updateTableState API. It discloses that it loads from a caslib data source, which is a state-changing operation. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description provides additional context about the global scope and idempotency behavior, which is valuable.

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, consisting of three short sentences that front-load the main purpose, then explain the mechanism and idempotency, and finally provide a hint for discovery. No unnecessary words. 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 the tool complexity (no nested objects, 3 required params, has output schema, and annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains the scope, idempotency, and suggests a complementary tool for discovery. However, it doesn't mention any potential errors or if the operation requires special permissions, but given the output schema exists and annotations cover basic safety, this is adequate.

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 already describes all three parameters with reasonable descriptions (server_id, table_name, caslib_name). The description does not add further detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify that the table is loaded from a caslib and promoted to global scope. Since schema coverage is 100%, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds little extra semantic 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 tool loads a source table into CAS memory at global scope, using a specific API, and differentiates from siblings like list_source_tables and get_castable_info. It specifies the resource (source table) and the action (load/promote). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 explains that it loads from a caslib data source, promotes to global scope, and mentions idempotency. It explicitly suggests using list_source_tables to discover unloaded tables, providing some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to other options like upload_data or query_data, but does recommend the discovery tool.

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