frida_interceptor_revert

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

The description provides minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is destructive, or what happens if no interceptor is active. With no annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence should earn its place; this one is too vague to be useful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 required params, no annotations, no output schema, many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, parameters, or effects, leaving the AI agent with insufficient information.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the two required parameters ('target' and 'address'). The parameter names are generic and unexplained, leaving an AI agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 'Call GumJS Interceptor.revert().' identifies the action but is very terse. It does not specify what exactly is being reverted (e.g., a previously attached interceptor) nor distinguishes it from sibling tools like `frida_interceptor_flush` or `frida_interceptor_replace`.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description lacks context about expected use cases or conditions, such as requiring an active interceptor hook.

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