revert_last_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool restores from a .bak file, retains only the most recent backup, and that consecutive writes make it roll back the last write. This is meaningful context, though it does not cover edge cases like what happens if no backup exists or whether the rollback is destructive to concurrent changes.

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: it states the action and mechanism first, then gives the trigger condition and the backup-retention caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers what it does, when to use it, and a key limitation. However, it does not mention failure behavior when no backup exists, nor what the return/response signals after a rollback, so it is slightly incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented file_path parameter. It does not explain what file_path refers to (e.g., the file whose last write should be reverted, or the path to the .bak file). The parameter name is self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('回滚' / roll back) and resource ('最近一次由本服务执行的写入' / the most recent write performed by this service), and even mentions the .bak restore mechanism. It clearly differentiates itself from write_cells and the other sibling tools by identifying its exact operation: undoing the last write.

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 description explicitly says when to call it: '当 write_cells 的结果不符合预期时调用它撤销' (call it to undo when write_cells results are unexpected). It also warns about an important limitation: only the most recent backup is kept, so consecutive writes will roll back only the last one. This is clear usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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