postfader_review_apply_revision

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds specific operational behavior: it performs a preflight and requires one write authorization before modifying. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe what gets destroyed or failure conditions.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. 'Apply,' 'bounded revision,' 'one preflight,' and 'one write authorization' each earn their place by communicating the core action and constraints efficiently.

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?

Given the complex nested ReviewApplyRevisionRequest schema and destructive annotations, a one-sentence description is functional but thin. The output schema covers return details, and the annotations cover safety, but the description does not mention the need to coordinate with postfader_review_plan_revision or what happens when authorization is missing. It is minimally sufficient, not complete.

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% and the single parameter has its own description, 'Recorded RevisionPlan and present task-scoped authorization.' The prose adds little per-field meaning, but at 100% coverage the schema carries the burden, so the description is adequate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Apply' and identifies the resource as a bounded revision, which clearly states the action. While it does not explicitly name the 'Creation Review' domain in the description or mention a particular sibling, 'Apply' clearly differentiates it from planning, evaluating, and comparing revisions.

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 wording 'with one preflight and one write authorization' implies the prerequisite that an authorization and a prior plan are needed, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over postfader_review_plan_revision or other revision tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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