Promote DevOps Center Work Item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the fact that this is a mutation is established. The description adds conceptual context about pipeline progression but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as side effects, required stage conditions, reversibility, or return behavior. Given that annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds some but limited value.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence provides useful context about the pipeline. However, the parameter line is redundant since it duplicates the schema description, which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not explain what happens after promotion, what the result indicates, or how it differs from the similarly named sibling 'sf_promote_devops_work_item'. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools or interpreting the outcome.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'workItemId' with description 'DevOps Center work item ID'. The description repeats this as 'workItemId: the DevOps Center work item record ID', but adds no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 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 tool's function: 'Promotes a DevOps Center work item to the next pipeline stage.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'sf_promote_devops_work_item', which appears to have the same purpose, preventing a 5.

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 contextual information about the pipeline progression ('represents the progression of changes from development environments toward production'), which implies when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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