ghl_agent_studio_promote_and_publish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required Sub-Account (location) token and the agent-studio.write OAuth scope. It still doesn't say what happens to the previously published production version or whether the promotion can be rolled back.

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 core action is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by compact endpoint and auth metadata lines. The title line duplicates the first sentence verbatim, which is wasted space, but the rest is dense with no 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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the essentials are present. However, there is no output schema and the description says nothing about the result of publishing (what ID/state comes back) or failure modes, which an agent invoking a publish operation would want.

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 100%, so parameter meaning is already documented (versionId as draft version to promote, locationId for authorization, optional user fields, source for auditing). The description only hints at the versionId path and the location-token requirement, adding little 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?

States a specific verb+resource combination (promote a draft version to production) and gives the exact endpoint path, so the agent knows precisely what operation runs. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling ghl_clientportal_promote_project_to_production or from ghl_agent_studio_update_version, so sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 draft→production framing implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no stated prerequisite that the referenced versionId must be a draft/staging version that isn't already published. Alternatives are not named.

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