revise_scroll_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable behavioral context that response letter with point-by-point replies is required. However, lacks disclosure of mutation side effects (creates new version vs update in place), partial update semantics (null defaults), or auth verification requirements.

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?

Two efficiently structured sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with primary action, second sentence delivers critical requirement (response letter). Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite output schema existing (reducing return-value documentation burden), the combination of 0% input schema coverage, 7 parameters with complex anyOf types, and missing parameter guidance makes this incomplete. Fails to explain required fields, optional revision fields, or expected response_letter format.

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 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description must compensate significantly. It only conceptually maps 'response letter' to the response_letter parameter without explaining its complex array-of-objects structure, required scroll_id/author_id semantics, or that null values in content/abstract/title indicate partial updates.

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 specific action (Submit revised version) and resource (scroll) with clear context (addressing reviewer feedback). Effectively distinguishes from submit_scroll_tool (initial submission) and review_scroll_tool through the 'revised' qualifier, though lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus submit_scroll_tool, prerequisites (e.g., existing reviewed submission), or when-not-to-use conditions. Only implies context through 'reviewer feedback' mention.

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