Revert Image Edit

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

Adds value beyond the annotations: the "Free — does not consume credits" cost signal is not in annotations, and the statement that the result stays in the Canvora workspace and is returned as a preview/downloadable URL discloses the output side-effect. Annotations already carry idempotent/non-destructive hints, and the description does not contradict them. It does not say what happens to the edit versions after a revert (still recoverable or discarded).

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the cost signal, then the prerequisite, then the return shape. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Return behavior is described in place of an output schema, which is good. However, with 0 required params and 0% schema coverage, an agent still cannot tell how to select between edit_id and generation_id, what output_index refers to, or what the default behavior is when no edit_id is supplied.

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% and the description only implicitly covers edit_id ("find edit IDs"). It says nothing about generation_id or output_index, nor what passing a null/absent edit_id does relative to "revert to the original", which is central to correct invocation given all 3 params are optional.

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?

States a specific verb (revert) and resource (a generated image's edit) plus the two possible targets: a previous edit version or the original. This clearly separates it from edit_image (which creates a new edit) and get_edit_history (which reads history).

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?

"Use get_edit_history first to find edit IDs" gives an explicit prerequisite and names the sibling to call before this one. Missing is any statement of when NOT to revert (e.g. instead of re-editing), but the operational context is clear.

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