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

Annotations already declare mutation, destructiveness and idempotency, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: revisions are allowed on LOCKED facts, concurrent/conflicting edits fail rather than overwrite (optimistic concurrency), title and kind are preserved, and identical retries are no-ops on history. It stops short of stating what happens to the prior revision or what permissions 'Owner' entails.

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?

Five short clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, then invariants, then preconditions and concurrency semantics. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the description adds prerequisites, concurrency failure mode and idempotent-retry behavior. Remaining gaps are the untouched parameters (content, revisionReason, tags) and status-transition semantics, which an agent would need for a 7-required-parameter call.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden, and it clarifies expectedRevision's source ('from retrieval') and the invariant on title/kind. It says nothing about programId, content, revisionReason, tags, or what the status enum values mean, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (revise) plus the exact resource set, enumerating 'promise, module outcome, or non-contradiction rule' which maps directly to the schema's kind enum. This cleanly separates it from the sibling record_promise / record_module_outcome / record_noncontradiction_rule creation tools without needing to open the schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires expectedRevision from retrieval') and a scope condition ('including a LOCKED fact'), implying retrieval must precede revision. It does not, however, explicitly name the retrieval tool (e.g. get_curriculum_context) or state when to revise vs. re-record, so the routing guidance stops short of fully explicit.

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