Strong tool naming (verb_noun pattern, clear intent) and comprehensive input schemas with enums and constraints. Descriptions are present and actionable (avg ~120 chars, within baseline 194). However, parameter descriptions are sparse or missing entirely, most params lack explanatory text beyond type/enum. Output schemas are not documented. Error handling is basic (fail/ok wrapper with message only, no recovery guidance or categorization). Security considerations around protected_passages and HTML sanitization are mentioned but not formalized in descriptions.

• Add parameter descriptions to all tools. For each param, explain what it controls, its expected format, and constraints. E.g., 'base_sha256 (string): SHA256 hash of the current revision. Used to detect concurrent edits. Obtain from get_editorial_project().'
• Document output schemas in tool descriptions or as a separate schema field. E.g., 'Returns {revision: {slug, number, created_at, approved_at, approved_by}, audit: {readability_score, protected_passage_violations, style_issues}}'.
• Enhance error messages with recovery guidance. Instead of 'Invalid base_sha256', return 'Invalid base_sha256: does not match current revision. Call get_editorial_project(slug) to fetch the current revision hash, then retry.'
• Add idempotency guarantees to apply_revision and approve_revision. Document: 'Idempotent: calling with the same parameters twice produces the same result (no duplicate revisions). Safe to retry on transient errors.'
• Consider a dry-run parameter for apply_revision (e.g., dry_run=true) to validate without committing, or document the propose_revision → apply_revision flow as the canonical two-step pattern.