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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the returned data (stale-write hash, dirty-node contract) and framing the tool as a step in the revision workflow, complementing the read-only annotation without contradicting it.

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 two sentences with the return payload front-loaded and the usage context clearly stated. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter, and the description lists its output components (Story JSON, stale-write hash, allowed patch paths, dirty-node contract) while specifying the workflow position. Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema fully covers the single parameter comic_id with a clear description ('Comic id to revise.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current Story JSON, stale-write hash, allowed patch paths, and dirty-node contract'), clearly defining the tool's scope. It also distinguishes this from the sibling comic_submit_revision by explicitly positioning it as the pre-submission brief for client-authored edits.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the client will decide the edit with its own model') and directs the agent to the follow-up call ('then call comic_submit_revision'). This provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not enumerate when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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