revise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral traits: the mutation is IN PLACE, the id survives, and `history` retains both versions (auditable/recoverable). It omits permission requirements and any failure modes, keeping it 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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the core in-place semantics front-loaded before the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics, reversibility via history, and alternatives well. The gaps are the undocumented `initiative` param and lack of permission/error context, neither of which is fatal.

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 75%, so the schema already documents body, name, and rename individually. The description only reaffirms that body and name are the things being changed; it adds no syntax, format, or meaning for the undocumented `initiative` param, so the baseline 3 holds.

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+resource ('Rewrite a node's body and/or rename it') and immediately distinguishes itself from two named siblings. An agent can tell revise apart from supersede and settle without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing rules: use this to correct/extend, use `supersede` when the change deserves a new identity, use `settle` when nothing changes. Both alternatives and their selecting conditions are spelled out.

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