edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that edits will be the smallest coherent change, the document's voice is preserved, and untouched text is kept intact. This goes beyond the schema by describing the tool's conservative editing philosophy and the expected form of user input.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action and constraint, the second instructs on the form of changes, and the third clarifies preservation behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs and behavioral constraints well. The only gap is that it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., the revised full document), but the action 'revise' implies the output is the updated document.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics to the 'changes' parameter by requiring facts rather than replacement prose, and to 'document' by implying it must be verbatim current text. This helps the agent phrase inputs correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Revise an existing document' with the qualifier 'smallest coherent change.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools 'create' and 'review' by targeting modification of existing content rather than generation or assessment.

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 gives clear context for use: editing existing documents and requesting changes as facts rather than prose. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the 'existing document' phrasing and focus on minimal change imply when this tool is appropriate versus siblings.

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