Revert an applied optimization to restore the original product content. Overwrites current copy, so use only when you need to undo changes.
POST /api/v1/optimizations/{id}/reversion — reverts an applied optimization back to the original content. DESTRUCTIVE: overwrites the product's current copy. EXPENSIVE: 10 req/min limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Optimization UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying the exact effect ('overwrites the product's current copy') and the rate limit (10 req/min). These are useful operational details not present in the annotations, and they are consistent with 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 and front-loaded: it states the endpoint and action first, then the warnings. It has no fluff, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the action from warnings with a clear section), so a 4 is warranted.
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 simple 1-parameter operation with annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, its side effects, and its rate limit. No output schema means no return-value explanation is needed.
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?
The single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no extra meaning about it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameter.
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 action ('reverts an applied optimization back to the original content') with a clear verb, resource (optimization), and outcome. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply, approve, and reject by explicitly focusing on reversion, so an agent can easily differentiate it.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use (to undo an applied optimization) and includes important warnings (DESTRUCTIVE and EXPENSIVE with rate limit). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give 'when-not-to-use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.