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

The description discloses side effects ('No provider execution or external publication') and explicitly explains the idempotent retry semantics and conflict behavior. This aligns with the idempotentHint annotation and gives an agent confidence about how the tool behaves under repeated calls.

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 description is compact (two sentences) and front-loads the primary action and resource. It avoids redundancy and uses precise language to convey both the operation and its concurrency model.

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 the tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description omits details about the return value and the exact meaning of 'status' and 'kind'. However, it adequately explains the core purpose, concurrency semantics, and side effects, making it reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers all 9 parameters with types and constraints, but the description only explains the purpose of 'expected_revision' and 'request_id' for concurrency. Other parameters like 'title', 'kind', 'status', and 'ticket_id' are left to their schema titles, so the description adds limited meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 clearly states the action ('Append') and the resource ('immutable document revision'), and specifies the key concurrency parameters. It distinguishes itself from document creation by focusing on revision appending with optimistic concurrency control.

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 description explains when the tool is appropriate (appending revisions) and provides concrete guidance about retry behavior and conflict scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over create or get operations.

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