apply_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety traits: immutability and append-only behavior. However, it omits important behavioral details such as what happens when base_sha256 does not match, whether an audit trail is updated, and whether approval status is independently enforced.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the critical safety property. Every clause adds useful constraint information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Four required parameters are undocumented, there is no output schema, and no annotations are provided, yet the description does not explain what base_sha256 must reference, how change_summary is used, or what the caller receives on success or failure. The workflow position is hinted at but not connected to approve_revision or audit_revision.

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 0% and the description names none of the four parameters or their formats. 'Exact proposal review' only hints at base_sha256 semantics, leaving slug, revised_content, and change_summary to be inferred from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 names a concrete operation—'append an immutable revision'—and adds a clear boundary with 'never overwrites prior text,' so an agent can distinguish it from update/overwrite tools. It does not fully explain what constitutes a 'revision' or which sibling produces the exact proposal, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'after an exact proposal review' states a clear precondition and workflow context, suggesting this is not a first-step tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give a when-not-to-use condition, but the intended placement in the revision workflow is reasonably clear.

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