revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the operation is non-destructive: it is 'saved as a new version, so nothing is lost.' This directly addresses the most important side effect an agent needs to know. It does not mention permissions, output, or failure modes, but the key safety trait is well covered.

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 efficient sentence with a valuable parenthetical. Every part earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It explains the main effect but leaves parameter semantics, expected output, and usage context to be inferred. An agent calling revert correctly would likely need additional information about what 'name' and 'version' refer to.

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 must compensate but largely does not. It loosely aligns 'earlier version' with the version parameter, but it never explains what name refers to, how version is interpreted, or how the two parameters relate. This is insufficient for a two-parameter tool with no 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Restore an earlier version.' The parenthetical clarifies the operation creates a new version rather than overwriting. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like history or put_model, but the restores-a-prior-version meaning is clear enough to distinguish it from listing, exporting, or editing.

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 implies the use case: when a user wants to go back to an earlier version. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use revert versus history, edit_model, or put_model, and it offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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