Api document revisions update

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints—no permission requirements, no note about what the update affects, and the word 'viewed' is imprecise for an update endpoint. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes almost nothing.

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?

The description is a single sentence and front-loaded, so it is concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, since it spends its words on a vague 'viewed or edited' phrasing rather than a precise update statement.

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?

This is a mutation endpoint with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not compensate by explaining what an update changes, what the body should contain, or how it differs from partial_update, so an agent lacks the information needed to call it confidently.

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%, so the schema only names 'id' and 'body' with no meaning attached. The description does not explain that 'id' identifies the revision or what the 'body' object contains, leaving both parameters semantically undocumented.

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 names the resource (document revisions) and implies editing, but 'viewed or edited' conflates a mutation endpoint with read operations. It does not distinguish this update tool from the adjacent partial_update, retrieve, or list endpoints, leaving the agent to infer the exact action from the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this update endpoint rather than partial_update, retrieve, or the many other document-revision siblings. The description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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