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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 24-hour expiry and the guarded refusal that prevents clobbering a concurrent change. It does not explicitly address idempotency or what the caller observes on refusal/expiry, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the constraints following in priority order. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation semantics plus preconditions are well covered. What remains thin is the post-refusal caller experience (error vs. status) and any permission requirements, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of proposal_id. Saying the tool reverts "an applied proposal" ties the ID to the output of apply_change and implies a non-arbitrary identifier, which is meaningful, though it does not spell out the expected ID format.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ("Revert an applied proposal") and further qualifies it as restoring "the values read just before it was applied." This clearly separates it from the sibling apply_change/propose_change without needing to open any 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?

It states the eligibility window ("Available for 24h after apply") and the refusal condition (objects no longer hold what the apply wrote), which effectively defines when to use and when not to. It stops short of naming alternatives for the post-24h or stale-state cases, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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