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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: destination and content association are immutable, and revisions use optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision. It does not state auth requirements or rate limits, but the immutability and concurrency disclosures exceed annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the two constraints an agent most needs (immutability, concurrency). No filler or restatement of the name/title.

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 needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description fills the remaining gap with the create/revise distinction and immutable-field rules. The main omission is a map of the six undocumented identifier parameters, but for a mutation tool this is largely covered.

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 10 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It meaningfully explains expectedRevision (null=create, value=revise), label/enabled (the mutable revision fields) and destination (immutable), but leaves idempotencyKey, seriesId, projectId, postId, id and workspaceId entirely undocumented.

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 (create/revise) and resource (tracking link) and clarifies the two operating modes. It distinguishes create from revise contextually, though it does not name any sibling tool it competes with (none is obviously adjacent). Clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 rule 'Revisions require expectedRevision; null creates' selects between two modes but reads more as parameter semantics than usage guidance. It never states when to reach for this tool versus others in the workspace, nor any prerequisites beyond the revision rule. Implied usage only.

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