aro_computation__revision_adjustment

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the output is an adjustment (increase represented by +), but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires any permissions. The brevity leaves significant behavioral unknowns, though it is implied to be a pure computation.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure and essential information like parameter explanations or usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the calculation context, output interpretation, or provide any reference to IFRIC 1 revision, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description fails to explain any parameter. Terms like 'old_remaining_pv', 'new_cost_estimate', 'discount', 'inflation', and 'years_remaining' are not defined or contextualized, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the tool returns an adjustment to both provision and asset for IFRIC 1 revision, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling ARO tools like accretion_schedule and initial_aro by specifying 'revision', though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a revision adjustment is needed versus an initial ARO or accretion schedule. The description lacks any contextual cues for tool selection.

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