fow_revise_requirement

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds valuable context beyond that: the revision is immutable, existing evidence is not rewritten or made current, and downstream currentness/closure may change. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious consequence disclosure the annotations cannot convey, though it omits explicit permission/authorization error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly labeled Prerequisites and Effects. Every sentence carries content, though the trailing 'Exact help' template line is somewhat boilerplate-heavy for a description whose sibling fow_capabilities already exists.

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, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema present, the description covers prerequisites, the append-only semantics, and downstream effects. The receipt/retry story is delegated to the schema's request_id and the help route, which is reasonable given the output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% and each of the 9 parameters carries its own description (actor, title, category, rationale, statement, requirement_id, project_id, request_id, source_anchor), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The prose mentions statement and classification but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so a baseline-plus score 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change the statement or classification of an existing requirement') plus the mechanism ('by appending a canonical revision'). Combined with the prerequisite/effects framing, an agent can distinguish this from register_requirement (new) and set_requirement_lifecycle (state) without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear invocation context ('Single operation; call directly without an operation argument') and explicit prerequisites ('Investigate the existing requirement and authorize any actual change of intent first'). It does not name a sibling alternative to route to when the change is a lifecycle transition rather than a revision, which keeps it short of a 5.

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