Api document revisions start editing create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that the current user becomes the editor, implying lock acquisition, but says nothing about conflict behavior if another user is already editing, lock expiry, or whether it fails or steals.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing context noted elsewhere.

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 state-changing lock operation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should at least cover the conflict/failure case and the effect on other editors. As written, an agent cannot predict what happens when someone else already holds the edit.

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% — the single parameter is an undescribed string 'id'. The phrase 'this revision' weakly implies the id is the revision identifier, but format (UUID/int) and whether it is the revision id versus the document id is not stated.

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 ('Mark') with an explicit object ('the current user') and resource ('this revision'), so the effect is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name sibling operations like stop_editing or take_over_editing, but the name plus sentence makes the distinction inferable.

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 on when to call this versus stop_editing, take_over_editing, or editing_status. The agent must guess whether to acquire the edit lock, check the status first, or take over an existing lock.

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