revert_submission

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description does reveal a key behavioral trait: it creates new CLs as a side effect. However, it does not disclose whether the original submission is modified or removed, permissions required, or other consequences, leaving much for the agent to infer.

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 with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and any details about outcomes or side effects beyond the creation of CLs, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 description provides no information about the parameters (message, change_id, gerrit_base_url) beyond what the schema already shows. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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 a specific action ('Reverts an entire submission') on a specific resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'revert_change' by emphasizing 'entire submission' and noting it creates 'one or more new CLs'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'revert_change' or 'abandon_change'. The description simply states what the tool does without discussing appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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