revert_version

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'revert,' which implies mutation, but it doesn't state whether the action is irreversible, what happens to the current version, or if branches are affected. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 two sentences, direct, and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words and delivers the essential information efficiently.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key prerequisite, but it lacks behavioral details such as whether the revert is irreversible, what the response looks like, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not fully complete 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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds valuable extra meaning by specifying that session_id must come from a prior call to validate_knowledge or evolve_knowledge, which is not in the schema. It doesn't add detail for target_version_id, but the schema covers it adequately.

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 action: 'Revert a session's Knowledge Structure to a specific previous version.' It identifies the specific resource (Knowledge Structure) and the target (previous version), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_versions or compare_versions.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: session_id must come from a previous call to validate_knowledge or evolve_knowledge. This gives useful context for when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the top tier.

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