memory_promote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does well: it discloses dry_run=true default as preview-only, requires dry_run=false to write, states the category-change side effect, and describes the return value. It does not cover failure modes or permission expectations, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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?

All information is packed into four purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the verb and effect. The dry-run warning and to_scope enumeration are concise; no filler or repeated schema boilerplate.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full call sequence: how to get the id, what to_scope values are valid, the safe default behavior, the actual update switch, and the return payload. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: 'platform:auto' falls back to global when content guessing fails, and dry_run semantics are tied to the preview/update workflow. It also ties id to memory_list. This is useful meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('promote a memory') and the precise effect ('Changes one memory's category from project:X to platform:Y or global'), which distinguishes it from memory_add/delete/search/list siblings. The 'so future searches find it under the wider scope' phrase reinforces the purpose.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when an Agent/user judges a project-specific memory is actually cross-project common knowledge') and a prerequisite ('Find the id via memory_list first'). It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative among siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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