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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: an approval precondition, the no-overwrite semantics of conflicting edits, the expectedRevision concurrency requirement, and confirmation that identical retries leave revision history unchanged (which independently corroborates idempotentHint=true). It also explains what LOCKED status means operationally. Nothing here contradicts destructiveHint=true.

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?

Five short sentences, all load-bearing, with the approval gate front-loaded. No filler, no restatement of the tool title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the hard parts of a destructive optimistic-concurrency write. Only the under-documented parameters keep it from complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it only covers expectedRevision, title/kind preservation, and the LOCKED status value. The remaining parameters (content, projectId, tags, revisionReason) get no explanation, though most are self-evident from their names and enums.

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?

States a specific verb pair (save/revise) and resource (canon), and the opening clause makes the create-or-update nature of the upsert clear. It does not name a sibling tool, so the agent must infer that search_story_canon is the retrieval counterpart, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

"Only after the user approves it" plus the explicit exclusion "brainstorming is not approval" gives a clear use gate, and "Existing entries require expectedRevision from retrieval" tells the agent the precondition for updates. What is missing is any explicit routing to siblings (e.g., use search_story_canon first to get expectedRevision).

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