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

The description adds useful behavioral context by saying 'This call asks no human,' which tells the agent no approval step is required. With destructiveHint=true already indicating danger, it does not go further to explain irreversibility or what exactly is lost when staged changes are returned.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the core action. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic, but the overall structure is efficient and has little wasted language.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the basic revert semantics and the absence of human approval. It still leaves a gap around consequences, especially whether discarded staged changes are permanently lost and how conflicts with expect_revision are handled.

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 the parameter descriptions already explain config, volume, project, service, environment, and expect_revision. The description adds some selection nuance with 'one Service, Volume or Config' and 'A named one differing only from saved returns to saved,' but it does not clarify project, environment, or revision behavior beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and object: returning staged changes, or one Service, Volume or Config, back to deployed/saved state. It is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as deploy or deployment_cancel.

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 staged-versus-deployed framing implies when to use it, and the schema note about omitting service/volume/config clarifies scope. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose discard over alternatives or when not to use it.

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