Request a revision

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the client is notified automatically, the item status moves to needs_revision, and the return value is { status: "revision_requested", item_key }. This gives the agent a full picture of side effects and outcome without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action comes first, followed by the triggering condition with examples, then the side effect and return value. Every sentence contributes necessary information without 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape. It also covers prerequisites via the workflow reference to get_intake_results, and the schema links intake_id to define_intake. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that the note explains what is wrong but adds little semantic value beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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: ask the client to resubmit a specific item with a note. It includes concrete examples (blurry logo, long copy, broken URL) and describes the resulting status change, making the tool's role unambiguous even without naming sibling alternatives.

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?

It explicitly says to use this after reviewing get_intake_results and finding an item that does not meet requirements. It does not discuss when-not-to-use or contrast with update_item or send_chase, but the workflow context is clear.

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