phabricator_revision_inline_edit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing ownership scope (own drafts only), the failure mode (published comments are immutable), and a hard dependency on the differential.inline.* Conduit extension. It does not spell out that the prior text is overwritten irreversibly, but the destructive hint covers that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint, then the prerequisite. No redundancy with the title or schema and 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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing scope, immutability and extension prerequisites. The one gap is that the destructive suggestionText-omission behavior lives only in the schema, not the description.

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% and the schema itself carries the critical gotcha (omitting suggestionText removes the existing suggestion). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource pair ("Replace the text and suggested edit of your own draft inline comment") plus the preserving property ("keeping its place in the diff"). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling inline_comment, inline_delete, inline_publish and inline_search tools without opening any schema.

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?

"your own draft inline comment" and "Published comments cannot be edited" give clear eligibility conditions and implicitly route already-published edits elsewhere. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. inline_delete for removal, inline_comment for new comments), so it lacks explicit when-not routing.

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