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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds real context: it is an undo, it moves exactly one step backward, it has a precondition (all contained work still planned), and ready batches are immutable. It doesn't state the return shape or failure behavior, but the mutation semantics are well disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the action, then layers the transition, the precondition, and the exclusion — every clause carries new information and there is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state change, the precondition, and the irreversible-case exclusion. Only the failure/error behavior when the precondition is unmet is left unstated, a minor gap.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds nothing about the id format or constraints, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb (revert / move one step back) and resource (a batch), and spells out the exact state transition developing → planned. This clearly distinguishes it from update_batch, delete_batch, and get_batch 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 gives an explicit when (only while every work inside is still planned) and an explicit when-not (ready batches are frozen history and can't be reverted). No alternative sibling is named for the case where revert is not allowed, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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