memory_promote

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation), the description discloses meaningful behavior: exactly one step per call, error on unknown id or already-published memory, and the key non-obvious guarantee that rejected memories are never deleted and can be revised/resubmitted. It also explains the reviewer-override semantics of `by`.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and state ladder, then supporting constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing parenthetical about MCP server / CLI / plugin surfaces is meta-info that slightly dilutes focus.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the transition, reject path, error conditions, and resubmission well. It omits what a successful call returns (e.g. the memory at its new state) and any permission/authorization requirements, which would round it out.

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 intent beyond the terse schema strings: it explains why `by` exists (recording a reviewer that differs from the default, e.g. approving on another's review) and ties reject+note and resubmission behavior to the relevant flags.

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 precise verb (advance/promote) and resource (project memory) plus the exact state transition (proposed → approved → published). It also names the sibling that handles the adjacent case (memory_submit for brand-new drafts), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 clear when-to-use context (advancing a memory one rung, or rejecting with a note) and explicitly routes the new-draft case to memory_submit. It does not, however, address relationships to other review-lifecycle siblings like memory_propose or memory_resolve, so the alternative coverage is partial rather than exhaustive.

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