opencode_revise

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, cost, or what the revision instruction triggers. It merely restates the operation without disclosing consequences.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb. No filler words.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or parameter descriptions. The single-sentence description only captures the core purpose, leaving parameter behavior, return value, and prerequisites undocumented, which is insufficient for reliable 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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose of sessionId, acceptance, allowTierUpgrade, or allowModelFailover. Only 'revision instruction' hints at the instruction parameter, but no parameter semantics are provided.

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 a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('existing OpenCode session') with a clear qualifier ('with a revision instruction'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opencode_status, opencode_review, and opencode_abort.

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 usage when an existing session needs revision, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like opencode_review or opencode_abort. The context is clear for continuing a session, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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