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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not invoke a server revision LLM, and it regenerates only inferred dirty producer nodes (e.g., panel:<id>, motion:<id>, tts:<bubble_id>). This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations, which are consistent with the described write-and-regenerate behavior.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause contributes to understanding purpose and behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description, combined with a 100% schema-covered parameter list and clear annotations, is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could mention return values or status, but since there is no output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately without major gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of dirty producer nodes and explaining that targeted changes regenerate only those nodes, reinforcing the distinction between the 'changes' and 'story' parameters. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 ('Apply') and names the exact resource ('client-authored Living Panels revision'), while the qualifier 'without using a server revision LLM' distinguishes it from server-driven revision workflows. This clearly separates it from siblings like comic_revision_brief or comic_submit_design.

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 clear context: use this tool when applying a client-authored revision, not a server LLM revision. It also notes that targeted changes are the preferred path for small edits. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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