audit_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does offer some value: 'transparent' signals explainable output rather than a black box, and the negation clarifies a non-behavior. However, it never states whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor what the audit returns — significant gaps given siblings like apply_revision are mutations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the clarifying negation. Every sentence earns its place; this is efficient, appropriately sized text.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover what the audit produces and confirm non-destructive behavior, but neither is addressed. The required parameter slug and usage context are also missing, leaving an agent under-equipped despite the simple 2-parameter surface.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only echoes the word 'revision' and never explains the required 'slug' parameter or the relationship between slug and revision number. An agent gets no help understanding that slug likely identifies the editorial project scoping the revision.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('a revision'), and clarifies scope with 'This is not an AI-authorship detector,' which helps an agent distinguish it from a potential misuse. However, 'Clearon style heuristics' is unexplained jargon that weakens clarity, and no sibling tool is named for differentiation.

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 only usage hint is the negative statement 'This is not an AI-authorship detector,' which tells the agent what not to use it for but not when to use it. There is no guidance on workflow placement (e.g., audit before approve_revision) and no alternatives named among the eight siblings.

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