gtm_revert_variable

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context with 'fingerprint protection', signaling a concurrency safeguard, though it does not explain what the fingerprint is or whether the caller must supply one.

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 filler; the verb and scope come first. It is efficient, though the trailing clause about fingerprint protection sits at the end where it is easy to miss.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation on 4 required params, the description omits prerequisites and the mechanism that 'fingerprint protection' implies, leaving a notable gap.

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% (variableId is undocumented), just under the 80% baseline. The description adds nothing about parameters, so it neither compensates for the variableId gap nor clarifies the workspace scoping already shown in the schema.

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 user-defined variable'), which cleanly separates it from gtm_update_variable and from gtm_revert_tag/gtm_revert_trigger. It never explicitly names those siblings, but the resource noun makes the distinction inferable.

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 says what reverting does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects revert over update_variable, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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