revision_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'makes no network calls', that re-running a subagent on the original question would reproduce the previous answer, and that material is named rather than pasted. It also warns about the consequence of opening files when preparing the prompt, which is important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds rationale, parameter mapping, and material-handling guidance in a logical order. It is somewhat verbose and repeats the 'transcript will not show' idea twice, but most sentences earn their place given the tool's subtle behavior.

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 tool with no annotations and no top-level schema descriptions, this description is unusually complete. It explains what the tool does, why it is needed, how to call it, what arguments to pass, what side effects are absent, and how materials should be handled. An output schema exists, so the lack of a described return format is not a gap.

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 for top-level parameters is 0%, and the description compensates by mapping parameters to the sibling call: 'Pass the same prompt, answers, round and materials you are passing to revise, plus seat.' It also clarifies that 'seat' is 'the label (or member id) of the seat to write for.' It does not independently explain prompt, answers, or round, but the cross-reference to revise makes the semantics usable.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Build the exact prompt a seat should be given for the next round.' It immediately contrasts itself with 'revise' ('revise asks the members'), so an agent can distinguish this prompt-builder from the council-asking sibling. It also names the exact target seat ('the one seat this server cannot ask itself: yours').

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 explicitly says which sibling to compare against and exactly what to pass: 'Pass the same prompt, answers, round and materials you are passing to revise, plus seat.' It even gives timing guidance: 'run it alongside revise rather than after it.' This is explicit, actionable usage guidance.

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