revert_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that it is MUTATING, uses parm.revertToDefaults(), groups changes into a single undo group, and applies response cap. It lacks details on error handling or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences, each adding specific information: purpose, implementation, and response handling. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes no fluff, though it assumes familiarity with terms like 'apply_response_cap'.

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 simple mutation tool, the description provides the essential operation details and notes the undo behavior, but it omits parameter meanings, prerequisites (e.g., node existence, parameter existence), and potential return values. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to make assumptions.

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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (ctx, path, parameter). It only mentions "parm" generically, leaving the agent to infer which parameter is the target. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool's action: "恢复 parm 至默认值" (Restore parm to default values), using a specific verb+resource. It also explicitly marks it as "MUTATING", which distinguishes it from non-destructive parameter tools like get_parameter or lock_parameter.

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 description implies usage: when you want to reset a parameter to its default value. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like set_parameter or delete_keyframe. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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