Git revert

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false. The description adds that it creates an inverse commit, which implies a non-destructive-to-history operation. However, it does not disclose potential failures (e.g., merge conflicts), the impact on the working directory, or whether the new commit is automatically committed unless no_commit is set. Some additional context beyond the annotation, but not rich.

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, compact sentence that is immediately informative and front-loaded. There is zero wasted language, and the core action and mechanism are stated directly.

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 destructive operation with two required parameters and no parameter documentation, this description is severely incomplete. It omits what the parameters do, when the operation may fail, and the exact effect on the repository (only vaguely implies a new commit). The presence of an output schema mitigates some return-value ambiguity, but the call-time requirements are still unclear.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The meaning of 'rev' (commit reference), 'path' (path filter?), and 'no_commit' (suppress automatic commit) are entirely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the action (revert), the resource (a commit), and the method (creating an inverse commit). It distinguishes this from sibling git tools like git_reset (moves HEAD) or git_checkout (switches branches). A specific verb and resource with a clear mechanism.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as a clean working tree, or when git_revert is preferred over git_reset or git_rebase. The description is purely functional and provides no decision-making context.

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