request_revision

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that feedback is posted as a message and that the return value lacks history. However, it does not explicitly state whether the task status changes, permissions required, or other side effects, leaving noticeable gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant phrasing. Every clause adds value (action, side effect, return value limitation).

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?

The description covers the core purpose, side effect, and return value, and points to get_task for history. However, it omits explanations for key parameters (id, by, expected_version) and does not state the resulting task status or prerequisites beyond 'completed task'. Given no output schema and sparse annotations, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 25% (only feedback has a description). The description adds some meaning for feedback (posted to thread) but does not explain id, by, or expected_version. With such low coverage, the description should compensate more but does not.

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 tool's function: send a completed task back for changes and post feedback to the task's thread. It distinguishes from sibling tools like complete_task or approve_task by focusing on revision, and explicitly contrasts with get_task by noting the return value lacks history.

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 implies when to use it: when a completed task needs changes. It also provides a routing hint to use get_task for history, which helps the agent choose between tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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