revision_revert

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Append' implies a write operation, but there is no detail on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what 'reverse revision' means in practice. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence and technically concise, but it omits critical information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, so the brevity does not serve the agent's needs.

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?

Given a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema explanation, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not convey the tool's operation, when to use it, parameter semantics, or expected results, making it nearly useless for an AI agent.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameters. It doesn't clarify the meaning of 'path', 'author', or 'revision', nor how they relate to 'native CAD preimages'. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and identifies a resource ('reverse revision from native CAD preimages'), but the meaning of 'reverse revision' is jargon-like and not clearly explained. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like changeset_commit or resource_read, and the purpose remains ambiguous without inferring from the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name.

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