request_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the revision-round limit (max 3), the permission constraint (only the task creator), the auth requirement (keypair), and the resulting state change. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action and state transition come first, followed by limits, permissions, and auth. Every clause carries information, though the first sentence is long enough that the constraints could be split for easier scanning.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, state transition, round limit, authorization, and auth mechanism. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 task_id and note are already fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely restates the note's purpose ('a note saying what to fix') without adding format or length guidance beyond the schema's maxLength of 2000. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send delivered work back to the deliverer for changes') plus the precise state transition (submitted → claimed). It clearly distinguishes itself from submit_deliverable, accept_deliverable, dispute_task, and cancel_task by naming the revision flow they participate in.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it, names the sibling used to re-deliver (submit_deliverable), and enumerates the fallback actions (accept, dispute, cancel) once the 3-round cap is hit. An agent knows exactly when this tool applies versus its siblings.

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