Promote quarantined low-trust output

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and the description merely repeats the action. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements beyond 'board_or_agent', or what happens to the low-trust output after promotion. The description fails to add value beyond the verb.

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 very concise (two sentences), but the first sentence repeats the title without adding value, and the second provides only the HTTP path and auth class. It is not overly long, but the content is minimal and not fully earning its place.

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 is a mutation with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the return value (output schema exists but is not described) and the effect of the operation. It lacks completeness; the agent would have to infer behavior from the tool name alone.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description gives no information about any of the 2 parameters (path and body) or their sub-fields. The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide (e.g., what 'sourceArtifactKind' options mean, or what 'title' and 'summary' represent). This is a critical gap.

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 states the tool promotes quarantined low-trust output, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other issue-related sibling tools, nor does it elaborate on what 'promote' entails (e.g., changing status, making visible). It is clear but lacks detail for full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or the context of quarantined output. The only hints are the authorization class, but no usage context is given.

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