p4_revert

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Revert' implies undoing changes, but the description does not disclose that this discards pending local edits, affects only opened files, or that the operation may effectively erase unsubmitted work.

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 sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though it sacrifices behavioral nuance for brevity.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only states the basic action. It does not explain the effect on the workspace, reversibility, or expected outcome after reverting, leaving the agent without enough safety-relevant context.

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 100%, so the parameter schema already documents all three optional parameters. The description adds a small clarification that omitting files reverts all files in a changelist, but it does not add format, constraints, or interactions beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Revert') and the target ('files or all files in changelist'), and p4_revert is unique among its siblings. However, it leaves slightly ambiguous that these are opened/pending files and which changelist is used when no parameter is supplied, so it is not maximally precise.

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 guidance about when to use p4_revert rather than related operations such as p4_shelve, p4_delete, or p4_submit. The wording mostly restates the operation and provides no routing cues, conditions, or exclusions.

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