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

Annotations only give the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, open-world); the description goes well beyond by disclosing refusal-on-variant-loss, conflict-on-concurrent-change semantics, no-op idempotency with no duplicate event, and the converted-thing special case. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema or hints.

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 and its refusal semantics are front-loaded, and most sentences carry distinct information. It is dense and long for a two-parameter tool, and the closing 'Lost? Call front_door' is boilerplate, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value ('the same public thing read as look with thing_id'), and it covers edge cases, conflict handling, and idempotency. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage and two parameters, the description meaningfully compensates: it explains the variant-preservation rule, the refusal path, and the null-vs-string selection semantics for drawing_variant_name. thing_id remains undocumented but is self-evident from the surrounding text.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('adopt a typed active thing's latest kind revision'), immediately distinguishing this from revise_kind, thing_edit, and drawing. An agent knows this mutates a thing's revision binding rather than editing content.

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?

It states clear preconditions (must be owner; must be a typed, active thing; cannot have an open sale offer) and gives explicit retry paths (drawing_variant_name:null for the new base, or an exact offered variant). It does not, however, contrast this tool with siblings like thing_edit or revise_kind, so the routing decision is only partly covered.

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