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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses optimistic-concurrency semantics ('Requires expectedRevision from retrieval', 'Conflicting edits fail without overwriting'), retry behavior ('Identical retries leave history unchanged'), and a preservation invariant ('Preserve the existing title and kind'). These details materially extend the safety/idempotency profile the annotations only sketch.

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 tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by invariants, concurrency, retry, and exclusion rules. No filler; each sentence carries operational weight.

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 no explanation, and annotations plus description together cover safety, idempotency, and concurrency. The remaining gap is the undocumented non-required parameters, which a caller could still get wrong.

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 params, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for expectedRevision (source from retrieval), title/kind (must be preserved), and status (LOCKED facts editable), but accountId, content, revisionReason, and tags remain undocumented anywhere. Partial compensation only.

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 ('revision of an existing') and enumerates the resource types it governs (entitlement, renewal offer, concession rule, including a LOCKED fact). This clearly separates it from the create-oriented siblings like record_current_entitlement and record_forbidden_concession and from read-only siblings like get_fact_history.

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 explicit positive context ('owner revision of an existing fact') and a strong negative exclusion ('Do not use this to invent a concession, a discount, or an extra entitlement the owner did not supply'). It does not name a specific sibling to use for the excluded case, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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