revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and usefully discloses that the revert is non-destructive in the sense that it creates a new commit rather than rewriting history. It does not address edge cases like conflicts or failed reverts, but the core safety-relevant behavior is stated.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the operation and its effect without extraneous detail. Every word 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?

The description explains the core operation and the output schema covers return values, but the lack of commit-format guidance and absence of usage alternatives leave some context gaps for a tool with one required parameter.

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 0%, and the description adds almost no detail about the 'commit' parameter beyond calling it 'specific'. It does not specify the expected format (SHA, ref, etc.) or any constraints, so an agent has to infer how to identify the commit.

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 precise verb ('Revert'), a resource ('a specific commit'), and the resulting behavior ('creating a new commit'). This is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools, none of which perform revert-like operations.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to undo a specific commit. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but no obvious revert alternative appears among the siblings and the context is clear enough.

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