p4_revert

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing that this is a destructive operation. It merely says 'revert' without specifying what happens to local changes, whether reverting a changelist also deletes it, or whether any confirmation is required. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies workspace state.

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 extremely concise (four words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While brevity is good, the description lacks critical details that would justify replacing the missing narrative, making it more underspecified than concisely comprehensive.

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 the tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate with more context about the operation's behavior and use cases. It does not, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the parameter names and sibling tool context, which is incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; for instance, it does not explain how 'path' relates to 'files' or 'changelist' or whether they are mutually exclusive. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Revert files or changelist' clearly identifies the action (revert) and the targets (files or changelist). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like p4_edit or p4_sync, though it could be more explicit about reverting to the depot version.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like p4_delete or p4_raw_command, nor does it explain prerequisites or the effect of reverting on the working directory or changelist.

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