rws_report_create_revision

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the valuable idea that referenced evidence becomes a frozen snapshot rather than a live link, which is real behavioral context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about concurrency handling or what happens on a stale expectedRevision.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action first and no filler. It is efficient, though the compression into jargon costs comprehension rather than saving space productively.

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?

Against a deeply nested record schema, four required parameters, and no output schema, a single sentence is not sufficient. Nothing explains the two-pass record semantics (id-only vs full record), version pinning on refs, or the revision conflict behavior.

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 25% — only `record` has a description. The description itself mentions no parameters, leaving requestId (idempotency key) and expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency guard) unexplained in both places, which is a critical gap for a mutation tool.

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+resource pair 'Create a report version' is identifiable, but the qualifier 'immutable foundation and transitive evidence snapshots' is opaque jargon that does not tell an agent concretely what the resulting version contains or how it differs from a plain record save.

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?

No statement of when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as rws_record_get or any save/register sibling, and no prerequisites (e.g., a prior base revision) are given. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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