Revalidate discovery

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: success is silent, status and revalidation log are available via 'show', and an unknown id fails with `not found` (exit 5). This materially helps an agent anticipate outcomes without a return 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core operation is first, then observable success/failure behavior, then the key sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: effect, silent success, failure mode, where to verify, and the relevant alternative tool. It is complete for the complexity of this mutation tool.

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. The description adds meaning by tying 'surface' and 'from' together as the 'fresh anchor' and indicating they can be used in combination ('and/or'). It does not, however, detail constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Move a stale Discovery back to active', with a clear mechanism ('paying a fresh anchor: new surface paths and/or provenance ids'). It also distinguishes itself from 'promote' by explicitly naming the copy-to-another-project alternative.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use context: a stale Discovery that needs a fresh anchor. It also explicitly routes the agent to 'promote' for copying a Discovery into another project, and to 'show' for observing status and logs.

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