ghl_agent_studio_promote_and_publish

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations: it confirms the action is a mutation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and provides endpoint details and OAuth scopes. However, it does not disclose crucial behaviors like whether promotion is irreversible, if it overwrites an existing production version, or any side effects. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, but this is not elaborated.

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 short and the key action is front-loaded. However, including endpoint details and OAuth scopes adds technical verbosity that may not be essential for an agent. It could be more compact by focusing only on the behavioral purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested schema, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a draft versionId), the outcome of promotion, or any return value. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 does not mention any parameters at all. With only 33% schema description coverage (just a generic comment on body), the agent is left without guidance on what versionId represents or how to construct the body fields meaningfully. This is a critical gap for a tool with nested objects.

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 it promotes a draft version to production, specifying the verb 'promote' and resource 'draft version to production'. It distinguishes from sibling agent_studio tools like create, delete, or execute by its unique action, though it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must have a draft version) or when not to use it. The large sibling list includes many other agent_studio operations, but no comparisons are made.

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