Api document revisions destroy

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description describes this as an endpoint that allows revisions to be 'viewed or edited'. That directly misrepresents a destructive delete operation, including no disclosure of permanence or cascade effects.

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 short sentence, so there is no verbosity, but the sentence is under-specified and mischaracterizes the operation. Brevity does not earn credit when the content is wrong.

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 destructive, non-idempotent-by-name operation with no output schema and an undocumented id parameter, the description should state the deletion target and consequences. Instead it supplies a misleading summary that leaves the agent unable to call it safely.

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?

One required `id` parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what the identifier refers to (revision id vs document id) or its format. No value is added beyond the bare 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?

It names the resource (document revisions) but the stated verbs are 'viewed or edited', which is not what a `destroy` endpoint does. An agent reading only the description would mistake this for a read/update tool.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives among the many sibling revision tools (list, retrieve, partial_update, update). Worse, the described read/edit framing actively points away from the actual delete use case.

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