ppt_revert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature by using the word 'discard' and indicates the working copy's state changes. However, it does not mention irreversibility, whether changes are permanent, or any permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Discard current uncommitted edits') and then specifies the options. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately concise 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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description should be more complete. It omits critical details such as the irreversibility of the operation, how to specify a backup timestamp (format, where to find it), and the role of presentation_path. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the overall context is insufficient.

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. It explains the 'target' parameter by mentioning 'original state or a specified backup timestamp', giving it meaning. However, it does not explain 'presentation_path' at all, leaving it ambiguous. With two parameters and only one explained, the description fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (discard edits, revert), the resource (working copy), and the two options (original state or backup timestamp). This distinguishes it from siblings like ppt_save (which saves) and ppt_open (which opens). The verb 'revert' is unique among the sibling tools, making it unambiguous.

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 clear context: use this when you want to discard uncommitted edits and revert. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use ppt_save to keep edits). Since there are no exclusions or named alternatives, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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