Bump Revision

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the destructive effect (clearing ALL verdicts), the cost ('Costs 1 budget'), the re-vote requirement, and the free first verdict. This goes well beyond the minimal schema info and gives an agent a solid understanding of the side effects.

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 three tight sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the usage rationale, and the cost/voting consequence. It is front-loaded with the most important identifying information and contains no fluff.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, side effects, cost, and voting consequences. Since an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required. An agent has enough context to decide when to call this tool and what will happen.

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 token, author, and thread_id well. The description reinforces the author requirement ('Creator-only') but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('bump the thread's revision') and the key effect ('clearing ALL verdicts (G2)'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_verdict or set_status because it acts on the revision as a whole and resets the verdicts.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('after revising the artifact under review') and why ('stale passes must not auto-resolve a new revision'). It also carries an implicit exclusion with 'Creator-only,' but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the creator restriction.

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