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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet a mutation tool is described in one sentence. It does not say whether the current draft content is overwritten or a new revision is appended (the schema's 'created_by: Кем создана новая ревизия' implies a new revision is created, which the description never states), nor whether the operation is reversible or how the revision_id concurrency guard is used.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing redundant. It is efficient but does not structure preconditions or effects, which a mutation definition would benefit from.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but a mutation with no annotations and an optimistic-concurrency parameter needs more than one sentence. The absence of any statement about what happens to existing draft content or about revision creation leaves the agent unable to predict the side effects.

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 every parameter (artifact_id, to_revision_id, revision_id, created_by) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about parameters, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb (revert) and a specific resource (the artifact's active draft) plus the target (the selected revision), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as overwrite_artifact, replace_range_in_artifact, or list_artifact_revisions, which an agent could confuse with a rollback.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of the many other artifact-mutating siblings (overwrite_artifact, replace_substring_in_artifact, diff_artifact), nor any mention of prerequisites. The phrase 'active draft' hints at a precondition but the description never tells the agent how to confirm it or what to do otherwise.

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