create_content_asset_revisionCreate a new owned draft revision from a frozen submitted/approved/rejected revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| channel | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| asset_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. | |
| asset_type | No | ||
| scheduled_for | No | ||
| revision_notes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive hint. The description confirms creation but provides no additional behavioral details such as permissions, effects on the frozen revision, or side effects. Basic consistency maintained.
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?
Single sentence, no redundant words. Every word adds value. Appropriately front-loaded with the action and target.
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?
Given 7 parameters with minimal schema descriptions and no parameter details in the description, the tool is underdocumented. The output schema exists but is not visible; still, the description lacks essential context for correct invocation.
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 only 14% (only asset_id has a description). The description adds no explanation for the other 6 parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 states a specific verb 'Create', the resource 'content asset revision', and qualification 'from a frozen submitted/approved/rejected revision'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_content_asset or submit_content_asset.
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?
No guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies a specific use case (creating a draft from a frozen revision) but does not provide context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.