Api document revisions approve create

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful state-machine context by specifying the source and target statuses, though it omits permission requirements and failure 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and state transition are communicated immediately.

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 simple state-transition action with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential call context. The only notable gap is that the id parameter remains undocumented.

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?

There is one required id parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the id identifies the revision to approve, but adds no format or validation detail beyond that implication.

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 states a specific verb (approve), resource (revision), and exact state transition (in_review to validated). It clearly distinguishes this action from sibling revision actions such as request_changes, submit_for_review, or publish.

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?

The required precondition is explicit: the revision must be in_review, and the action results in validated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or explain what to do if the revision is not in_review, but the usage context is clear.

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