revert_rewrite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'undo' but does not disclose whether the revert requires authorization, whether it is reversible, whether it restores prior text, or what happens to the rewrite record afterwards. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a mutation tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

With a mutation action, no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description omits most of what an agent needs to invoke this safely. It should at minimum state the precondition and the effect on the underlying claim text.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what rewrite_id is, whether it refers to an applied rewrite specifically, or where the agent obtains it.

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?

States a clear verb ('undo') and resource ('an applied rewrite'), so the agent knows this reverses an already-applied rewrite. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like discard_rewrite or propose_rewrite, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'applied rewrite' hints at the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as discard_rewrite or apply_rewrite. Given four sibling rewrite tools, this omission is significant.

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