Api document revisions request changes create

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful state precondition ('in-review'), but is silent on what actually changes (status transition, whether a rejection reason or reviewer identity is recorded) — notable because the schema carries only an id and no message field.

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?

One short sentence with the state precondition front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter action endpoint with annotations present and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It nonetheless omits the outcome of the transition and any permission/reviewer-role requirement, which an agent executing a review workflow would want.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter. The description indirectly ties it to a revision ('on an in-review revision'), which is some compensation, but it never states that the id is the revision identifier (versus a document id) or what format it takes.

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?

States a specific verb ('Request changes') and resource ('revision') plus a state qualifier ('in-review'). An agent can distinguish it from approve/submit_for_review/publish siblings by name, but the description itself never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts them.

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 phrase 'on an in-review revision' implies the valid state precondition and thus when the call applies. However, it never states the alternative actions (approve, submit_for_review, publish) or what to do if the revision is not in review, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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