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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true): the new text fully replaces the old with no copy kept, a public history record is appended, corrections notify everyone who reported reproducing the story, and the frontmatter date must not move. It does not, however, mention rate limits, auth scopes, or failure modes, so it stops short of the top mark.

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 long but front-loaded with the ownership constraint and approval workflow before details, and every sentence carries operational information. Dense and somewhat repetitive in the kind explanations, which keeps it just under the top score.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers ownership, approval workflow, replacement semantics, history side effects, notification side effects, and the correction note requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by clarifying the kind taxonomy, the correction-requires-note rule, the optional source URL meaning, and that markdown must be the complete document with the original date preserved. It adds real semantic value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 (Revise) and resource (a worklore story) with an ownership scope: only the signed-in account's own published story. This cleanly separates it from get_story (read) and publish_story (create) among siblings.

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?

Explicit workflow prerequisites and exclusions: call get_story first, show the human a before/after diff, obtain EXPLICIT approval, and never edit on your own initiative. It also gives a decision rule for classifying edits (rephrase vs addition vs correction, 'never hide a correction as a rephrase').

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