revise

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces a thought, preserves the original in revision history, and persists to SQLite. These are clear behavioral traits for a mutation operation.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides essential information. No waste.

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 has 2 simple parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a single clear purpose, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use, and its persistence behavior. It is complete.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, only specifying that 'thought' is revised thinking and 'revisesThought' is the thought number. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it replaces a previous thought with updated reasoning, preserving the original in history. It distinguishes from 'think' (add new thoughts) and from other tools like 'branch' or 'complete'.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('when earlier thinking was wrong, incomplete, or superseded') and when not to use ('do not use to add new thoughts — use think instead'). Also notes persistence behavior.

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