project_docs_revise

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false; the description goes further by disclosing the dry-run-by-default safety gate, the optimistic-concurrency requirement that a file must be re-read to obtain expected_sha256 before overwriting, and the consensus-preservation behavior expected of the writer. Remaining gaps are modest: no mention of what happens on a sha mismatch or of the authority requirement (left to the schema).

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 sentences, no filler, with the destructive-replacement semantics and dry-run default front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing note. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint an agent needs.

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 10-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts: overwrite semantics, dry-run gating, the stale-read guard, and routing away from append. It leaves the "allowed paths" set and the authority_file/HTTP-vs-stdio nuance to the schema, which describes them adequately.

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 coverage is 90%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: "fully replace" disambiguates the content parameter (whole-file substitution, not a patch), "one allowed .issueops project document" constrains rel_path, and the expected_sha256 provenance ties that parameter to project_docs_read. It does not explain evidence or authority_file, which the schema already handles.

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?

"Revise (fully replace) one allowed .issueops project document" gives a specific verb, the exact resource, the scope restriction (one document, .issueops only), and the crucial replacement semantics. The final sentence names the sibling it is NOT for (solved false cases, ADR entries) and points to project_docs_append, so an agent can separate it from the append tool without reading either 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?

It states the default mode ("Dry-run unless confirm=true"), the precondition for existing files ("require expected_sha256 from project_docs_read"), and an explicit negative case with the correct alternative. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and prerequisites are all present.

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