Api document revisions partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds nothing about mutation semantics, auth/permission requirements, or what a partial update does to unspecified fields — and its 'viewed' phrasing blurs rather than clarifies the write 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 short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but its brevity comes from saying almost nothing rather than from being well-targeted.

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 endpoint with an undocumented free-form payload, no output schema, and dozens of same-resource siblings, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to call it safely or to choose it over alternatives.

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%, and the description supplies no parameter information at all. The 'body' parameter is an unconstrained free-form object with a null default, which is exactly the case where the description needed to explain expected payload shape, and it does not.

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 restates the title almost verbatim ('document revisions ... viewed or edited') without naming the operation. It never says this is a partial update (PATCH) of an existing revision, and 'viewed or edited' describes two different capabilities that belong to sibling tools (retrieve/update).

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, and no mention of alternatives, despite many close siblings (document_revisions_update, _partial_update, _retrieve, _create, _submit_for_review, _publish). The agent must infer the selection from the tool name alone.

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