promote_learning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical mutation behavior by stating it appends to rules.md, which indicates a non-destructive write. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), permissions required, or reversibility, leaving gaps in the behavioral picture.

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 two sentences long and contains no filler. Each phrase adds value: the action, source, destination, and the specific file operation are all stated efficiently. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract. It specifies the mutation target and the operation, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. Minor gaps such as error handling or return value are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions: 'planName' is clearly explained, and 'learningIndex' is described as optional with a default behavior. The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Promote learnings') and the resource ('from a plan into project rules'), and also specifies the concrete outcome ('appends plan learnings to rules.md'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by revealing the exact file operation, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies its use case (promoting learnings from a plan) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like rules_manager or memory_manager. There are no stated exclusions or conditional use cases, so the guidance remains implicit.

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