Api document revisions take over editing create

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly mutation, and the description adds the one behavioral fact annotations cannot convey: that the lock is taken away from an existing editor. It does not explain what happens to that editor's unsaved work, whether they are notified or errored, or what permissions are needed, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the core verb ('Force-acquire') front-loaded and the override consequence appended. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description covers intent and the override effect but omits preconditions, required permissions, the fate of the displaced editor, and the response shape. Adequate but clearly incomplete for a lock-stealing operation.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is completely undocumented in both schema and description. It is not clear whether 'id' refers to the document revision id or the parent document id, which is a consequential ambiguity for this endpoint.

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-and-resource pair ('Force-acquire the editing lock') and clarifies it with 'overriding the current editor', which separates it conceptually from start_editing and stop_editing siblings. It never names those siblings, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Force-acquire' implies the tool is for when the lock is already held by someone else, but the description never says that explicitly or points to start_editing as the normal path. Usage is inferable rather than stated, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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