revert_change

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions creating a new CL. It does not state whether the original change is abandoned or modified, whether special permissions are needed, or any side effects/reversibility. This is a mutation tool with insufficient transparency.

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 concise sentence ('Reverts a single change, creating a new CL.') with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action and outcome.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It does not explain the result on the original change, the state of the new CL, or how it differs from 'revert_submission' and 'abandon_change', making it under-specified for reliable tool selection.

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 mention any parameter names or semantics. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without additional guidance beyond the schema's minimal titles like 'Change Id' and 'Message'.

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 reverts a single change and creates a new CL. This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from similar siblings like 'revert_submission' (which reverts a submission) and 'abandon_change' (which abandons without creating a new CL).

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 phrase 'a single change' implies use for individual changes rather than a whole submission, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is minimal and relies on inference.

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