nexus_create_or_update_revision

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

Adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: mods_json replaces the mod list, omitting it leaves the revision unchanged, and the return is a success/error JSON object. Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description only needs to add behavior specifics; it does, though it does not explain how the create-vs-update decision is made.

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 compact and well structured: purpose first, then the key mods_json behavior, then the return contract. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations describing safety/idempotency, the description does not need to repeat return details or every parameter. It covers the core behavioral contract well; the main gap is the exact condition that determines whether a new draft revision is created versus an existing draft updated, but this is partially inferable from the tool name and first sentence.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for the two most nuanced params by stating that mods_json replaces the mod list and omission keeps it unchanged, while collection_data_json is an alternative full-payload path. This goes beyond the schema field descriptions, although most overrides are left to the schema.

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 clear, specific action: create or update a draft collection revision, and identifies the API version (v2 GraphQL). The resource is unambiguous and the wording separates it from publish/discard/retract-revision siblings.

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?

Explains the central parameter choice—pass mods_json/collection_data_json to replace mods, omit mods_json to leave them unchanged—but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings like nexus_update_revision or say when one should be preferred over the other. The usage context is implied by the name and opening sentence, but not fully explicit.

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