get_author_revision_response_prompt

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

No annotations. Description states 'Draft a professional response' but tool name suggests it returns a prompt, not a direct response. Fails to disclose output type or 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded purpose. Could be slightly expanded for clarity but maintains conciseness.

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?

Despite output schema, description is too brief for a 4-param tool. Lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and workflow integration hints.

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?

Zero schema description coverage. Description does not explain any of the 4 required parameters (change_requested, is_aligned_with_data, action_or_counter, next_steps), leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool drafts a professional response to an author's major revision request, including tone and acceptance/decline options. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_peer_review_response_prompt.

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?

Implied usage for responding to author revision requests, but lacks explicit when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_rebuttal_disagreement_prompt). No guidance on when not to use.

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