revise_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does this well: it warns that the tool refuses without writing if capabilities are not in the ledger, and it details what happens when the revision passes—rewriting the section, updating the last-updated date, and adding a section if absent.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the refusal condition and then the write behavior. Every sentence adds information.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin. The behavioral details are useful, but the missing parameter meanings and lack of usage context leave an agent guessing about how to construct a valid call.

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 implicitly refers to capabilities ('台帳に無い機能名') and the package name. Parameters like basis, buyer, source, and hypothesis_state remain completely unexplained.

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 clearly states the action ('改訂する' / revise) and the resource ('パッケージ定義' / package definition). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this from sibling tools, but the revision framing is specific enough to be understood.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use revise_package versus get_positioning, record_positioning, or register_capability. The description explains the tool's behavior but not the conditions under which an agent should select it.

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