phabricator_revision_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions actions like 'accept' and 'reject' but does not explain their effects, side effects, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, more detail on state changes and notifications is needed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each word adds value. It is concise and efficiently conveys the tool's capabilities 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?

Given the tool has 21 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief and does not explain return values or provide examples. It fails to cover important aspects like what happens after an action is taken, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the schema descriptions for parameters are fairly detailed, including prefixes for blocking reviewers and the action enum's behavior. The tool description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Edit a Differential revision,' which is a specific verb and resource. It then lists supported actions and additional capabilities, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like phabricator_revision_search (for querying) and phabricator_task_edit (for tasks).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or suitability. While the purpose is clear from the name and description, there is no comparative context with sibling tools.

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