Galaxy Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a mutation operation (revision implies changing existing data) but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether revisions are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the original thought. It adds some context about the 'thinking session' context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero wasted language, and the most important information (the purpose) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation operation with 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by clearly stating purpose and usage context. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what the tool returns or how revisions affect the thinking session structure. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate for some 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 schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high and no additional param semantics are provided.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Revise a previous thought') and resource ('in a thinking session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'think' (create new thought) or 'conclude' (end session). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that is not tautological with the tool name 'revise'.

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 this tool: 'Use when you realize an earlier thought was wrong or incomplete.' This provides clear context for invocation and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'think' (for new thoughts) or 'branch' (for creating alternative thoughts).

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