env_revert

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of warning about destructive behavior. It explicitly states that files written in the guest are lost and that the operation discards everything since the fork, while also explaining the performance characteristics (fast because RAM snapshot resumes rather than reboots).

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 compact, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add important side effects and performance context without redundancy or filler.

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-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what the tool does, what is lost, and why it is fast. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. No critical information is missing 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?

The input schema already describes the single parameter as 'name of the environment' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the tool operates on an environment but does not add further details about name format, lookups, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discard') and clearly identifies the resource and scope: everything done in an environment since it was forked. It also clarifies the outcome ('returning it to its clean snapshot'), which separates it from sibling tools like env_restore that handle arbitrary snapshots.

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 for when to use this tool: when you want to reset an environment back to its fork state and lose all changes made inside it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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