revert_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that an expression-valued default is returned via default_expression/default_expression_language, that expression_error reports evaluation failure, and that locked parameters error with the locking source named. It still omits whether the revert is undoable or how keyframes/expressions are affected.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences on expression defaults and lock errors each carry real information. The trailing Args block is pure redundancy against the schema and is the only waste.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the meaningful edge cases (expression defaults, evaluation errors, locked parameters) an agent needs. Only the lack of failure/undo semantics and parameter format detail keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but the Args block merely restates the parameter names ('node_path: Node path.', 'parm_name: Parameter name.') with no format, path syntax, or example values. It adds essentially nothing beyond the schema titles.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Revert a parameter to its default value.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutators like set_parameter or lock_parameter, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Only one conditional is given ('a locked parameter cannot be reverted'), which is a constraint rather than usage direction. There is no guidance on when an agent should revert versus set_parameter, or what prerequisites (unlocking) are needed first.

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