request_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: standing preferences persist into voice.md. It omits other important behavior — whether the draft is regenerated or queued, whether the request is reversible, what triggers preference extraction, and what the call returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. The parenthetical example list is compact and informative, though the trailing ellipsis makes the preference-detection rule feel slightly informal and underspecified.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, more is needed. The voice.md side effect is a good addition, but the description leaves open what a revision request produces and how the three required fields should be chosen.

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 0% across three required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'With comments' loosely maps to 'comment', but 'seed_id' and 'channel' (a four-value enum) are never explained, and the relationship between the channel and the revision target is unclear.

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 gives a specific verb and action ('Request a revision with comments'), which is clearly distinct from approve_draft or kill_draft in intent. However, it never names the object being revised (a draft? a seed?) — the target is only inferable from the required 'seed_id' parameter, not from the prose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as approve_draft or mark_draft_ready. The second sentence describes a side effect rather than a usage condition, so an agent must guess when a revision request is the right call.

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