Sheet: Add Revision

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=false, yet the description discloses substantial behavior: idempotency with `created=false` and no drawing, default placement (upper-right, growing downward) chosen to avoid the ISO 7573 parts list, and three pre-write refusal cases including `capability: "revcloud"` on COM. This is exactly the kind of context the annotation does not provide.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then idempotency, then placement, then refusals — a sensible priority order with no filler sentences. It is dense and discursively punctuated, but every clause carries functional 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the high-risk behaviors (idempotency, refusals, capability gating) for a 12-parameter mutation tool. It is close to complete; only the placement/layout parameters remain ambiguous.

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 67%, so the description needs to compensate and partly does: it constrains `rev` (malformed codes refused), `clouds` (must be [x0,y0,x1,y1]), and `cloud_segment` indirectly. But parameters like `layout`, `origin_x`, `origin_y`, and `orientation` carry no description in either the schema or the description, leaving real gaps.

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 specific verb and resource ('Append one row to the revision block, creating the block on first use'), immediately distinguishable from siblings like entity_create_revcloud or titleblock_apply. The scope (revision block on a drawing frame) is precise enough to route correctly.

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 when the tool safely applies — idempotent per revision code, so re-running a revision pass is safe — and enumerates refusal conditions (malformed code, bad cloud region, missing revcloud capability). It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as entity_create_revcloud for standalone clouds, so routing guidance stops just short of 5.

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