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

Annotations only declare the read-only/non-destructive safety profile; the description goes well beyond that. It discloses traversal order (newest-first, matching the reversal walk) and, critically, what will be reported as unreversible and why — configuration steps with no audit event and alerts that already reached a recipient. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before acting.

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?

Purpose and safety scope are front-loaded, and the all-caps emphasis on the unreversible caveat makes the key constraint scannable. Slightly long and stylistically dramatic, but each sentence carries distinct information (order, unreversible cases, read-only nature).

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of describing the return content, and it does: a newest-first list of CRM writes plus unreversible items annotated with reasons. Combined with annotations covering safety, nothing material is missing for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema (including the firing_id note about per-run firings). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (preview what reversing a plan would attempt) and immediately bounds the scope with 'what it cannot touch, before anything is undone.' The 'Reads only; it reverses nothing' line implicitly separates it from the actual reversal siblings (reverse_audit_event, reverse_duplicate_group) without ambiguity.

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 anything is undone' implies this is a pre-flight check to run prior to a reversal, which is useful context. However, no alternative tool is ever named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to skip the preview), so the routing signal is only implied.

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