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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Optimistic version control' is a genuine disclosure that conflicts are possible and a base version is validated, which usefully primes the baseVersion parameter. However, it omits authorization requirements, what occurs on a version mismatch, and whether the update is idempotent despite an idempotencyKey parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is well-formed, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema demands far more context than one sentence. Missing concurrency-conflict behavior, idempotency semantics, and field-level guidance for title/params leave the agent underequipped to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters (5 required), including signature, publicKeyJwk, clientInstanceId, and idempotencyKey, none of which the description explains. It only faintly gestures at baseVersion via 'version control' and at ownership via 'your own'. With this coverage gap the description should compensate but does not.

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?

'Revise your own Wild Forge build' gives a specific verb (revise) and resource (build), and 'your own' signals an ownership scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as wilds_create_build, wilds_read_build, and wilds_test_build without needing their schemas. The trailing 'with optimistic version control' adds a concurrency hint but stays abstract.

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 says nothing about when to prefer this over wilds_create_build or how it relates to wilds_read_build / wilds_test_build. 'Your own' implies an ownership constraint but no prerequisites, exclusions, or conflict-handling workflow are stated. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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