kb_promote

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses that the atom is updated in place, content and ID remain unchanged, the exact return shape is {id, domain} or {error: not_found}, and a confirmed 'knowledge' schema mapping is required. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: scope, in-place behavior, return value/error, and a prerequisite. There is no repetition of schema information or filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, mutation semantics, return shape, and a key precondition. It falls slightly short by not explaining app_id or what a confirmed schema mapping entails, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to define all three required parameters. It implicitly maps atom_id and domain through context, but app_id is never mentioned at all, leaving a meaningful gap in parameter understanding.

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 specific verb ('move') and a specific resource ('existing knowledge atom') with a clear target ('different domain'). It is distinct from sibling tools like nest_promote and gap_promote because it explicitly scopes the operation to knowledge atoms.

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 example 'lift a journal entry into a topical domain once it proves durable' gives concrete contextual guidance on when promotion is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is clearly conveyed.

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