compile_semantic_revision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses immutability and the absence of auto promotion, but says nothing about side effects, whether output_dir is written, permissions, failure/retry semantics, or why an idempotency_key is mandatory for a 7-parameter operation.

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; the scoping qualifier 'without auto promotion' is well placed. The terseness is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that need not be described. But for a complex 7-parameter, 6-required mutation with no annotations, zero schema descriptions, and an idempotency requirement, one sentence of jargon-heavy prose is far from sufficient context to invoke it correctly.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: revision, source_run, prepare_manifest, semantic_store, output_dir, idempotency_key, and retry_failed are never explained. Only the parameter names themselves carry any meaning, leaving key semantics such as idempotency behavior and retry_failed scope 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 verb 'compile' and object 'semantic candidate' give a recognizable action, and 'without auto promotion' hints at how it differs from commit_semantic_patch. However, 'immutable source-coordinate semantic candidate' is undefined jargon, so an agent cannot confidently tell what artifact is produced without consulting sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many semantic siblings (prepare_semantic_batches, preview_semantic_patch, commit_semantic_patch, initialize_semantic_store). 'Without auto promotion' weakly implies the candidate must be promoted later, but the agent must infer that workflow.

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