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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the 24-hour revert window, skip-with-reason behavior for accounts edited after the batch, the no-overwrite guarantee, and the one-revert-per-batch limit. Those are exactly the side effects and failure modes an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 core semantics are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the usage trigger third and the localized copy last. Every sentence contributes a distinct constraint (time window, skip rule, one-shot limit, trigger), with 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?

With one required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the definition still covers the return-relevant behavior (skipped accounts listed with a reason) and all hard limits. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and set user expectations.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states "batch_id from apply_account_settings." The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for batch_id, 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?

"Restores the values that one batch changed, within 24 hours" states a specific verb (restore) and resource (a batch's prior values) with a precise scope. The operation is inherently distinguishable from apply_account_settings and update_account_settings, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"Applies when the user wants to undo a bulk change" gives an explicit usage trigger, and the 24-hour window plus once-per-batch limit act as effective exclusion conditions. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. update_account_settings for targeted fixes), so it stops at 4.

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