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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), it discloses that build runs as a job but answers immediately and must be re-called, that dry_run defaults to true and only reports counts while false launches ingestion, and that import is capped at 200,000 characters and never fetches URLs. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a mutating, open-world tool.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the triggering condition, and every clause maps to an action, so little is wasted. It would scan faster as per-action lines, and the build/job re-call instruction sits mid-sentence rather than being prominent.

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?

For a five-action, twelve-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers each action, the job-waiting loop, and the safety-relevant defaults, which is close to what an agent needs. Return shapes for build and run are only sketched ('returns the available databases'), leaving some guesswork about what success looks like.

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 coverage is already 92%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: save=false means look-only, dry_run true vs false, content is file text not a URL with a per-call size limit, and searches overrides providers. It does not explain idempotency_key or the blocks structure, both of which rely on the schema.

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 names each action and its resource concretely (build proposes concept blocks, edit_strategy/edit_queries save changes, run launches searches, import ingests a reference file), so an agent can map an intent to a branch. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling revisia_search (read) or revisia_jobs, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It opens with the situation that selects the tool ('preparing stage 2') and then gives per-action conditions, including the fallback behavior for run when neither providers nor searches are supplied. It also routes the agent to revisia_jobs for waiting and to revisia_projects for the id, which is explicit when/where guidance.

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