turingmind_promote_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only describes the state transition without disclosing potential side effects, authorization requirements, error handling, or what happens if the node is already in a higher state. This is insufficient for an agent to use safely.

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 extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences that convey the essential purpose and key constraints without extraneous 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description omits critical details such as return format, failure modes, and behavioral side effects. While the lifecycle is explained, the overall completeness is poor for safe 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% and the description does not explain the parameter 'node_id' at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context. This fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Promote') and resource ('auto-inventoried node'), and details the lifecycle progression ('observed' → 'proposed' → 'governed'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like turingmind_create_spec_node or turingmind_update_spec_node.

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 provides contextual clues about when to use the tool (e.g., proposing nodes require contracts, governed nodes are actively checked), but lacks explicit statements about when not to use it or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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