revise

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds an action inventory but says nothing about what destruction actually occurs, whether 'undo' or 'clear' are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what 'release' does — the very context a destructive dispatcher needs beyond the hint.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then calling convention, then the action signatures. Nothing is padded, though the final sentence 'query actions says what each does' is a vague deferral that earns its place only weakly.

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 multi-action dispatcher with a free-form nested 'params' object, no output schema, and no enums, the definition is thin: action semantics are entirely deferred to a separate 'query' call and there is no statement of effects, reversibility, or return shape.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage (only 'actor' is documented) the description must compensate, and it partially does by listing the per-action param keys inside the otherwise opaque 'params' object (e.g. release: resource, holder?, reason). However, it never explains what any of those keys mean, and the 'action' string has no enum in the schema, so the listed values are the only enumeration available.

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 verb ('change, correct or undo') is clear, but the resource is vague ('what is on the map'), and the framing directly overlaps with sibling tools literally named 'change' and 'undo' without distinguishing itself from them. The inline enumeration of action values (release, places_put, publish, publish_all, undo) is the only thing that makes the tool's actual scope legible.

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 guidance on when to use 'revise' versus the sibling tools 'change', 'undo', or 'draw', which appear to overlap. The single directive 'query actions says what each does' offloads the entire selection decision to another tool call rather than stating any conditions here.

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