promote_runbook

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

The description clearly indicates a state-changing operation by naming the lifecycle transitions, but with no annotations present it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if an invalid transition is attempted.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The usage guidance and parameter explanation are clearly separated and easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present and a single, well-explained parameter, the description covers the essential invocation details. It does not fully address edge cases like invalid current state or permissions, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 only provides 'runbook_id' as a required string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds a minimal but useful clarification that runbook_id is 'The runbook to promote,' helping an agent understand what value to pass.

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 specifies the tool's verb and resource: it advances a runbook through a lifecycle of draft -> reviewed -> standard. It differentiates itself from siblings like create_runbook, deprecate_runbook, and get_runbook by describing the promotion action rather than creation or deprecation.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: when authoring is finished and the runbook is ready for engineer review, or when an engineer has approved it as a Standard Operating Procedure. This gives concrete, actionable conditions for both lifecycle transitions.

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