phabricator_revision_inline_done

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, potentially destructive mutation. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the permission model, that an author check stays pending (isDonePending) until a publish, and that the differential.inline.* Conduit extension is required. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise miss.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action, then authorization, then pending semantics and the sibling reference. Minor density in the last sentence about the Conduit extension, but nothing wasted.

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 two-param mutation with no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what changes, who may do it, that the effect is deferred until publish, and the extension dependency. No meaningful gaps remain.

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 is 100%, with both isDone and inlineID already documented, so the baseline applies. The description adds no format or lookup detail beyond what the schema states.

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: check or uncheck "Done" on a Differential inline comment. The scope (inline comment flag, not the comment text) cleanly separates it from phabricator_revision_inline_comment and phabricator_revision_inline_publish.

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?

Explicitly names who may call it (revision author, or comment author while draft) and points to phabricator_revision_inline_publish for the follow-up. No explicit when-not-to-use case, but the authorization rules effectively define the allowed contexts.

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