Revert a file

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers the single most important behavioral trait: the revert is itself one undo step, so 'undo brings the edits back.' That reversibility guarantee is real value beyond structured fields. It omits secondary behavior such as permissions, confirmation of unsaved work, and what the call reports back.

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?

It is a single sentence with no wasted preamble and the core action is front-loaded. The nested parentheticals make it dense on first read, but every clause (undo semantics, default target, valid path source, extensions) adds information.

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 one-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action, default target, valid argument source, and reversibility — enough to invoke correctly. Minor gaps remain around failure cases and how unsaved edits interact with the revert.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter is optional, so the description must compensate — and it largely does, explaining that omitting it targets the zone file currently shown, and that when supplied it is a path from get_state's unsaved files with concrete extensions listed. It does not state what happens on an invalid or unknown path, keeping it below a 5.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Puts a whole data file back as saved') and scopes it to data files (zone file, .gca, carstatus.car, .ops, .efl), which implicitly separates it from the sibling revert_image. It stops short of naming revert_image or undo/redo explicitly as alternatives, but an agent can tell what this reverts.

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 rather than stated: the phrase 'the file named (a path from get_state's unsaved files)' tells the agent where valid targets come from, and the default target when no argument is passed is described. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs undo/redo or revert_image guidance, and no preconditions (e.g., must there be unsaved edits?).

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