mind_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 conveys a crucial non-destructive guarantee ('History is never rewritten: the restore lands as a new commit') and notes the ability to undelete 'forgotten' memories, which are important behavioral traits.

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 three tight sentences. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the main action, the second explains the immutable-history behavior, and the third directs to a prerequisite. No redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key behavioral aspects (new commit, undeletion) and points to the source for revision IDs. No critical information seems missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that memory_id can refer to a 'forgotten' (deleted) memory and that revision_ids come from memory_history, which enriches the meaning of those parameters beyond the schema.

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 primary action: 'Restore a memory to an earlier revision' with a specific verb and resource. It also highlights a special capability ('including undeleting a forgotten one') and points to a sibling tool ('Find revision ids with memory_history'), distinguishing it from related tools like edit_memory or mind_merge.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when restoring to a previous revision) and explicitly instructs to find revision ids via memory_history, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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