play_promote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful requirement (production needs allowProduction and an exact confirmation phrase), but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens when prerequisites are missing, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

Two short clauses deliver the key action and the most important prerequisite, with no filler. The production caveat earns its place, though the compressed wording ('frase exacta') sacrifices precision.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It omits what each parameter means, what a successful promotion returns, and how track promotion interacts with the sibling publishing tools.

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 seven parameters, and the description only hints at confirmPhrase ('frase exacta') and possibly a production flag. It does not clarify toTrack, fromTrack, packageName, releaseNotes, userFraction, or status, so an agent cannot infer their roles from the tool definition.

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 states a concrete action and resource: promoting a release between tracks, which distinguishes it from siblings like play_publish (publishing) and play_list_reviews (reviewing). It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the verb and resource are specific enough to orient an agent.

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?

It identifies a clear use case ('between tracks') and adds a production precondition, but it never says when to prefer this tool over play_publish or play_update_listing, nor does it mention when the tool should not be used.

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