gtm_revert_tag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the 'optimistic fingerprint protection' concept, hinting that stale fingerprints cause conflicts, but never explains what the fingerprint is or what happens on a conflict.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the scope and behavioral qualifier arrive immediately. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a destructive mutation.

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?

An output schema exists (so return values need not be explained) and annotations cover safety, which lowers the burden. Still, for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation the description omits conflict/failure behavior and any note that it targets uncommitted workspace state rather than published tags.

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 75%, so the baseline-3 concession does not apply and the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters at all, and tagId in particular is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the gap unfilled.

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 (workspace changes to a tag), clearly distinguishing it from gtm_update_tag and gtm_delete_tag. It does not, however, contrast itself with the parallel gtm_revert_trigger/gtm_revert_variable/gtm_sync_workspace siblings or clarify what 'revert' restores to.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when a revert is preferable to gtm_update_tag, gtm_delete_tag, or gtm_sync_workspace, nor any prerequisite about having pending workspace changes. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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