postfader_review_plan_revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the tool is a non-mutating pre-step and that the plan is 'bounded,' which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that is tightly packed and front-loaded: verb, resource, scope, and timing all appear in order with zero filler. Every word contributes.

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 very complex schema, the description supplies the essential workflow context: this is the planning/validation step before mutation. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. It could clarify what 'bounded' means or specify validation failure behavior, but the core call decision is fully supported.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Strict revision request plus a closed traceable operation list'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the full burden. A 3 matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Compile and validate') with a clear resource ('one bounded RevisionPlan') and a decisive scoping phrase ('before any project mutation'). This distinguishes it from mutation tools like postfader_review_apply_revision without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'before any project mutation' gives clear temporal context for when to call this tool versus an apply/execute tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the placement cue is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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