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

The description discloses the real behavioral nuance: the operation is an add-or-replace upsert on an agent's build reference, not just a simple set. It also surfaces the immutability restriction beyond what annotations provide, which helps the agent predict failure on non-draft revisions. It stops short of mentioning error behavior, permissions, or response shape.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire definition with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the immutability constraint is presented as a short, independent sentence that earns its place.

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 four-UUID mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the draft-revision restriction, and the add/replace semantics. It is reasonably complete, though a brief note about the expected outcome or error on immutable revisions would make it stronger.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a concise description in the schema, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters interact, such as which revision states are valid or what makes a build valid for an agent.

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 states a clear mutating action on a draft revision: it adds an agent to the revision or replaces the build that agent references. It correctly signals that live and historic revisions are off-limits, which distinguishes it from revision activation or removal tools, though it could name the closest siblings (e.g., removeAutomationRevisionAgent) more explicitly.

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 statement 'Live and historic revisions are immutable' gives an explicit constraint: this tool should only be used for draft revisions. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer adding versus replacing, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like setAutomationRevisionQueue or removeAutomationRevisionAgent.

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