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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation and risk profile are known; the description adds only that it returns the updated revision. It says nothing about what an update overwrites, that partial updates leave other fields untouched, or that a historic revision is rejected — all of which are behaviorally significant for a destructive call.

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 short sentences, mutation scope front-loaded and the return value noted second. No filler, though the field enumeration is partly redundant with the schema.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutator with nested objects and null/omit semantics, the description omits the partial-update model, the draft-vs-active-revision targeting behavior, and the mutual exclusivity of the handover parameters. The schema carries this, but the description should at least flag that omitting a field preserves it and that targeting a historic revision is rejected.

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 100% and each parameter carries rich documentation (null clears, omit leaves unchanged, handoverTo vs handoverOptions mutual exclusivity, selected_automation_revision_id branching rules). The description merely names the field groups, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource and enumerates the fields it can change (config, name, description, handover targets), which lets an agent distinguish it from createRevision or getRevision. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent mutators such as updateAutomation or updateSkillRevision, so it stops 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?

The description gives no indication of when to prefer this tool over siblings, no preconditions (draft vs active revision, permissions), and no note that nothing changes if a field is omitted. Usage must be inferred entirely from the schema.

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