Discard local changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important boundary: 'Does not touch the environment,' indicating the operation is local-only. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, whether backups are created, or any permission requirements. It adds some transparency but lacks depth for a 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 with no filler: it immediately states the primary action and then adds a key safety clarification. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core operation and clarifies that the environment is untouched. However, given the destructive nature and the large set of sibling tools, it could benefit from stating what happens to checked-out status or how it relates to backups. Still, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (entity and environment), including an experimental note for APPLICATION. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reset the working copy to the last exported/published state.' It also clarifies scope with 'Does not touch the environment,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish or restore_backup that affect the environment.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool should be used when the user wants to discard local changes and revert to the last exported/published state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives like ribbon_restore_backup for undoing published changes. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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