request_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the state transition (SUBMITTED → ACCEPTED) and that the human can resubmit, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements (though agent_key is in schema), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the job isn't in SUBMITTED status. It provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive coverage.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidelines and behavioral context, third gives parameter guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the state transition and resubmission capability. It covers the essential 'what happens' context. However, it doesn't describe error cases, authentication requirements (beyond the schema parameter), or what the response looks like. Given the complexity of a state-changing operation, there are some gaps in completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that the reason should be 'clear' and 'explaining what needs to be fixed,' which reinforces the schema's description for the reason parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 the specific action ('Request revision') on a specific resource ('submitted work'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for work with status=SUBMITTED that doesn't meet requirements. It explicitly mentions the state transition from SUBMITTED back to ACCEPTED, which is a precise operational detail.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when the human has submitted their work (status = SUBMITTED) but it does not meet requirements.' It also implicitly suggests alternatives by indicating this tool is for revision requests rather than approval (contrasting with 'approve_completion' sibling). The guidance includes both the trigger condition and the expected outcome.

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