revise_episode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does well: it discloses that the revision reuses the original's start point, inherits attestations and open disputes, and that the original remains in history but is no longer the asserted state. It stops short of permission/authorization requirements or conflict behavior, but the inheritance and history semantics are exactly the non-obvious facts an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, what it inherits, and the alternative. The contrastive example is short and load-bearing, and the negative routing instruction is placed last where it belongs.

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?

The semantic model of the operation is complete — history retention, inheritance, and the supersede boundary — and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. But for a six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the absence of any guidance on salience, entities, or source leaves the agent under-informed before calling.

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 six parameters, so the description must carry the meaning and largely does not — source, entities, salience, and vault_name get no explanation at all. Only content and episode_id are implicitly illuminated by the restatement framing. That is a real gap for a zero-coverage schema.

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 precise verb and resource — restating an existing episode rather than writing a new one — and immediately draws the line against the sibling that handles a different case (supersede_episode when the world changed). The parenthetical example ('lives in Padova' -> 'lives in Padova, in the Arcella') makes the allowed kind of edit unambiguous.

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?

It states the triggering condition explicitly (world did not change but you can now say it better) and names the alternative to use instead when the world did change. An agent has both the when and the when-not, plus the routing target, without opening any other schema.

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