nexus_update_revision

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds useful behavioral detail: partial update semantics ('Only the provided fields are changed; omitted fields stay as-is') and the return shape. It does not contradict annotations.

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: a clear one-sentence purpose, one sentence covering partial-update semantics, and a brief return specification. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 description is sufficiently complete for a mutation tool with 3 parameters, annotations, and an output schema. It covers the core behavior, ownership requirement, and return value, though it does not enumerate specific error cases or alternative sibling tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that omitted optional fields are preserved. This is especially valuable because adult_content and installation_info are nullable with defaults, making behavior non-obvious.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('collection revision's metadata'), and a key ownership constraint ('must own it'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like nexus_create_or_update_revision, nexus_publish_revision, and nexus_retract_revision.

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 implies usage context: update metadata on a revision you own. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when a revision may not exist and should be created instead.

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