revert_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action of reverting changes but does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, irreversible, or what the final state looks like. The term 'back' is vague, and side effects are not disclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description is incomplete for a state-modifying tool. It does not clarify what 'sublevel' means, the extent of 'this session', or any potential side effects or prerequisites. Given the presence of an output schema, return values may be covered, but the behavioral context is lacking, leaving the agent uncertain about invocation safety.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description is the only source of semantic information. It clearly explains that the tool reverts all parameter changes made in the current session, which is meaningful and sufficient given the empty schema. The 0-parameter baseline applies.

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 gives a verb ('put back') and a resource ('every parameter sublevel changed in this session'), but 'parameter sublevel' is ambiguous. It clearly indicates a revert operation, but the exact scope and meaning of 'sublevel' are not defined, making it only partially clear.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'undo', 'session', or 'history'. It implies reverting all session changes, but this is not stated explicitly, and no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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