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

The description discloses the key behavioral side effects: the client is notified automatically and the item status moves to needs_revision, and it returns a specific object { status: 'revision_requested', item_key }. These details go beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description also implies a write operation that cannot be idempotent, which aligns with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second gives usage context with examples, and the third reports the return value. No extraneous content; every sentence carries essential information.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, side effects, and return value. With the output schema already available and all parameters documented, this is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in the expected workflow.

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 input schema already describes all three required parameters (intake_id, item_key, note) with explanations, achieving 100% coverage. The description's examples (e.g., blurry logo, copy too long) illustrate usage but do not add new semantic constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score.

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 tool's action: asking the client to resubmit a specific item with an explanatory note. It provides concrete examples of what constitutes a revision-worthy item (blurry logo, overlong copy, broken URL), which helps the agent understand the intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_item, relying on the distinct verb 'request revision' rather than naming alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after reviewing get_intake_results and finding an item that does not meet requirements. It also notes the automatic client notification and status change to needs_revision. This gives clear usage context, but it doesn't provide when-not conditions or mention alternative tools such as update_item for direct edits.

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