promote_table_to_memory

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

Discloses the underlying API ('casManagement updateTableState'), idempotency (untouched if already loaded), and loading source (from caslib data source). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately explains the behavior but could mention permission requirements or memory implications.

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 extremely concise (two sentences plus a reference) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema (handling return values) and full parameter documentation, the description covers all essential aspects: action, scope, API details, idempotency, and sibling tool relation. It is complete for a straightforward loading 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, only contextualizing the parameters' role in promoting to global scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Load a source table into CAS memory at global scope') with a specific verb ('Load'), resource ('source table'), and scope ('global'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_source_tables' by explaining its role in promoting tables.

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?

Provides context for when to use this tool (after discovering unloaded tables via 'list_source_tables') and mentions idempotency. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives for other scenarios, such as using 'list_castables' for already loaded tables.

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