restore_patch

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

Annotations provide no destructiveHint or readOnlyHint, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'reverts' and 'restores', which implies mutation but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or has side effects. No output schema exists to clarify return behavior.

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 sentence with no extraneous words, but it lacks essential details. Conciseness is good, but structural elements like usage context or parameter hints are missing.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic action. However, it omits context like what a 'patch' is, whether the operation is reversible, or any constraints on the id. Additional detail would improve completeness.

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 should compensate. It only mentions 'by id' without explaining what the id refers to, what format is expected, or any relationship to other entities. For a single parameter, this is insufficient.

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 the action 'reverts' and the resource 'patch', along with the outcome 'restoring the previous state'. The tool name and description together uniquely identify its purpose relative to siblings.

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 patch_file or other mutation tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for invoking it.

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