revise

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the predecessor remains for audit, that it adds a 'supersedes' edge, and that it records a revision receipt instead of mutating in place. This is transparent, though it could mention any required permissions or irreversible aspects.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: the first declares the purpose, the second adds critical behavioral detail. No wasted 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?

Given the complexity (7 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the core behavior and audit trail. Return value is covered by the output schema. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add meaningful meaning beyond the schema; it uses the term 'durable memory' but that is not a parameter. The parameter descriptions in the schema already are clear.

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 creates a new durable memory that supersedes an older record, using a specific verb ('revise') and resource ('durable memory'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'store' (create new) and 'forget' (remove).

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 the tool is for updating with an audit trail, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'store' (which may silently overwrite) or 'forget'. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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