Revert note to exact history

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: 'The revert is itself durable, reversible, indexed, and operation-logged.' It also mentions the CAS pattern via expected_hash, giving insight into concurrency control. These details complement the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) without contradicting them.

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 concise, three sentences that are information-dense but not bloated. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the final sentence adds valuable behavioral context. There is minor redundancy between the first two sentences, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the undo use case, the CAS mechanism, and durability/reversibility. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a valid to_hash from history), but the sibling get_note_history implies that. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains expected_hash ('Pass the current content_hash as expected_hash for CAS') and implicitly defines to_hash as the target hash from history ('restore to exact content-addressed history bytes'). The 'note' parameter is obvious from the title and context. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema, though not all parameters are explicitly detailed.

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 tool's purpose: 'Use this to undo a bad write by restoring exact prior bytes.' It identifies the specific verb 'revert'/'restore' and the resource (note) with exact content-addressed history bytes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_note_section (partial edits) or append_journal (appends), providing clear differentiation.

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 gives a clear when-to-use context: 'Use this to undo a bad write.' It also provides specific guidance for the expected_hash parameter ('Pass the current content_hash as expected_hash for CAS'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is strong enough to imply it is for full reverts rather than partial edits.

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