airstrings_variant_promote

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the base string is overwritten, the action cannot be undone except by manually resetting old values, bundles are automatically republished, and it is refused on protected environments. This is exactly the operational consequence detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect, then irreversibility, then the environment restriction, then return value and routing. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states what is returned (the experiment and per-locale publish results). Combined with the irreversibility warning, protected-environment restriction, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the note that 'variant' is not 'control'. The description reinforces the meaning of 'key' and 'variant' in prose but adds no syntax, format, or constraint 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?

Opening sentence names a specific verb (end/promote) and resource (A/B experiment for one string key) and states the precise effect: variant values become the base string, old values overwritten, bundles republished. It is clearly distinguishable from airstrings_variant_stop, which it explicitly contrasts.

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?

Explicit timing guidance ('use it once a winner is clear') plus a named alternative with the condition that selects it ('to end the test without changing the base string, use airstrings_variant_stop'). It also states when the tool will be refused (protected/production environment) and what to do instead.

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