revert_mid_print_fleet

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 plan tiers and printer-count limits, but for a mutation that undoes work on running prints it says nothing about reversibility, effect on in-flight jobs, partial failure behavior, or permissions beyond the plan name — and the remaining text is upsell copy rather than behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But two of the four lines are marketing/upsell (feature list, pricing URL with agent tracking parameters) that consume space without helping the agent invoke the tool.

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 destructive-sounding mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undescribed array parameter, the description omits prerequisites for active sessions, expected return behavior, and failure modes. The plan-tier note is the only substantive addition, leaving real gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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?

There is a single required parameter, 'sessions', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain its shape and origin. The phrase "N printers at once" hints at batching but never defines what a session ID is or where the caller obtains one, and it conflates printers with sessions, leaving the sole parameter effectively undocumented. Graded 3 only because a single-parameter tool needs less prose than a multi-param one.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Revert mid-print transforms") plus a scope ("on N printers at once"), which is enough to distinguish it from fleet siblings like fleet_pause or decorate_during_print_fleet. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the additive counterparts (add_feature_during_print_fleet, decorate_during_print_fleet).

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 only usage signal is a plan prerequisite ("Business+", "Requires Kiln Business"), which is a gating condition rather than when-to-use guidance. Nothing says when a revert is appropriate versus rolling forward with another fleet call, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites for active print sessions stated.

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