promote_contract_generation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a mutating operation creating an immutable generation, that a pre-existing grant is required, and that file observation alone does not change canonical truth. It does not cover failure modes, conflicts with concurrent generations, reversibility, or permissions beyond the grant.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the grant precondition and the caveat about observation. No filler, though the 'Merely observing...' sentence is a mild restatement of the same point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 9-parameter mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, however, the description leaves several parameters and the failure/conflict behavior undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does partially: the phrase 'the same MODIFY turn, actor and Contract' ties together turn_id, actor_id, contract_ref and change_type, and grant_id is named explicitly. But content, source_checksum, source_storage_system and source_physical_location get no meaning at all.

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 ('Promote') and resource ('contract working copy') and names the resulting artifact ('new immutable canonical generation'), which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It also distinguishes itself from the passive alternative ('merely observing a changed local file'), though it doesn't name a sibling tool that does the observing.

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 a concrete precondition: the single active generation grant for the same MODIFY turn, actor and Contract must exist. That tells the agent when the call can succeed. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating explicit exclusion cases.

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