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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the same illustrator revisits the brief, that the result is obtained by polling get_result, and that no payment is required. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but the scope is limited and the critical behaviors are covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted text, and the structure is logical: action, required inputs, follow-up step.

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?

The description covers the purpose, parameters, and workflow (poll for result). Since an output schema exists but is not shown, the description effectively explains that the output is retrieved via another tool. This is appropriate for a mutation tool that does not return data directly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the reference code format (TASTE-...) and clarifying that adjustments are for the same illustrator. This supplements the schema definitions without redundancy.

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 tool is for spending a free revision turn on a completed illustration order, using a reference code and adjustments. It specifies the action and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like request_think_tank_revision by mentioning 'illustration order' specifically.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (after placing an order, need a revision) and notes that it's free. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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