gap_promote

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

Annotations only say not read-only, not destructive, and not open-ended. The description adds crucial behavioral context: it refuses with unconfirmed_schema if the schema mapping isn't confirmed, requires Postgres, and is gated as its own permission. These are significant disclosures beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention return format or side effects beyond that.

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 detailed but every sentence contributes meaning—purpose, prerequisites, error behavior, and permission context. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with necessary constraints. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but the structure is logical and not redundant.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: prerequisites, schema-confirmation gate, error condition, and permission separation. It doesn't explain the exact format of sources or the return value, but given the absence of an output schema, such details are less critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the confirmed_by parameter ('a human name, an agent id, whatever this fleet uses as an identity, but never empty') and states that at least one source is required. However, it does not elaborate on app_id, gap_id, tags, or domain beyond the schema's names and defaults. This gives some semantic value but leaves room for more detail on the remaining 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 opens with 'Turn a gap into trusted knowledge,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from gap_log, gap_resolve, and knowledge_ingest. It explains the operation is promotion to a durable knowledge base, differentiating it from SOIL-only gap operations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool and the conditions that must be met: it requires an answer, source, and confirmed_by, and it requires a schema-confirmation gate. It also contrasts with SOIL-only gap tools, names the specific alternative (knowledge_ingest) and the error case (unconfirmed_schema), and explains permission separation from gap_write. This is thorough and actionable.

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