airstrings_promote_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by stating 'Applies nothing', that a human applies the change at apply_url in the dashboard, and that protected environments are out of reach for agents. It stops short of describing diff size limits or the full return shape.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the read-only nature of the call, then the human-handoff mechanic, then the usage trigger. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 2-optional-parameter tool with no output schema but strong annotations, the description covers what the diff contains and the out-of-band apply path. Minor gaps remain (no mention of pagination or diff size, and apply_url is referenced without saying it comes back in the response).

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the 'must differ from source_env' constraint. The description only reinforces the direction of the promotion, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific operation (read-only diff preview of a cross-environment string promotion) and enumerates the result contents (added, updated, extra keys per locale). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling airstrings_variant_promote, which acts on variants rather than strings.

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 it after publishing to staging to hand a production release to a human') and an explicit limitation ('agents cannot promote to a protected environment themselves'). It does not name a sibling alternative for the actual promotion, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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