session.revert

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'one undo step', hinting at potential destructiveness and reversibility, but does not specify whether it overwrites current state, requires permissions, or has side effects on other objects.

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?

Extremely concise with two clauses. The essential information is front-loaded. However, brevity sacrifices clarity on parameters and usage context.

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 no output schema, many sibling tools, and low parameter coverage, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It omits what happens when no checkpoints exist, how to list them, and what objects are eligible for restoration.

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 has 0% description coverage; parameter titles only. The description adds default behavior for 'label' but not for 'object'. It repeats title information without deeper context (e.g., valid checkpoint labels, object identifiers).

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 indicates the action (restore), the resource (object from a checkpoint), and default behavior (most recent if no label). It distinguishes itself as the reversion counterpart to session.checkpoint, though not explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like app.undo, app.redo, or other session tools. The description implies usage for reverting changes via checkpoints but does not address prerequisites or context.

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