Revert commit

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

Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a generic return/exception note. It does not explain whether a revert commit is created, which branch is affected, or how conflicts are handled. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, but the remaining Args/Returns/Raises boilerplate is generic and does not earn its place. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 40-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this description is far too thin. It omits the information an agent would need to invoke the tool 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 schema has 40 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions generic **kwargs. It does not clarify critical parameters such as commit_hash, ref, branch, or start_branch.

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 says only "Revert a commit," which restates the tool name and title without adding scope, required identifiers, or effect. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as gitlab_cherry_pick_commit or gitlab_create_commit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites such as branch state or permissions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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