promote_governor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions requiring governor points but does not explain whether the promotion modifies the governor state, is reversible, or has other side effects. This is a significant gap 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 brief (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' section could be integrated more naturally.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter sources, and a prerequisite. However, it lacks behavioral details and return value explanation, making it adequate but not complete.

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?

The description explains that both parameters (governor_type and promotion_type) come from get_governors output, adding meaning beyond the bare schema names. With 0% schema description coverage, this guidance is helpful but could be more detailed (e.g., format or examples).

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 clearly states the action ('Promote a governor with a new ability'), specifying the resource (governor) and the operation (promotion). It distinguishes from sibling tools like promote_unit or appoint_governor, though it could explicitly differentiate from other governor-related tools.

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 context on when to use the tool: after checking available promotions via get_governors, and notes the requirement of governor points. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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