revise_proposal

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 discloses that the review bot will automatically re-evaluate the revision, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting previous versions), authorization requirements, or constraints like the tool failing if the proposal isn't in REVISE/REJECT status.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a usage context paragraph, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could be more explicit about preconditions (e.g., the tool will fail if the proposal hasn't received REVISE/REJECT feedback). Overall, it covers the essential context for using this tool alongside its siblings.

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 description must compensate. It adds character limits for 'definition' (10-3000) and clarifies that 'issue_number' comes from check_proposals or propose_term. Other parameters are merely restated with minimal additional context, but the key parameters are well explained.

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 clearly states the tool is for revising proposals that received REVISE or REJECT feedback. It specifies the action (revise), the resource (proposal), and the condition (feedback type). This distinguishes it from propose_term (new proposals) and check_proposals (status checking).

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: after checking proposals with check_proposals and reading feedback. It implies not to use for initial proposals or when feedback is something else, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for other scenarios.

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