sc_revert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Revert file(s)' without stating whether it discards local changes, whether it’s destructive, whether it requires checkout, or how it differs from 'undo'. The description doesn't compensate for the missing annotations.

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, extremely concise and front-loaded. It covers the essential action and resource. There is no wasted text, but it could add a bit more context (like 'discards local changes') without bloating, though conciseness is strong.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and the description gives the core purpose. However, given it's a mutation tool with no annotations, it would benefit from stating what 'revert' does (e.g., reverts to last checked-in version) and any destructive implications. The current description is minimal but adequate for a simple tool.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with 'paths' having a description 'File paths to revert', so the schema itself provides the necessary semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema suffices, leading to a baseline score of 3. However, since the tool is simple with one parameter and the description does not contradict, a 4 is warranted because the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 purpose is clear: 'Revert file(s) in source control.' This identifies a clear verb and resource (sc_revert). However, it lacks any context on what 'revert' does or its scope, which is a genuine gap for a mutation operation.

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 provides no guidance on what sc_revert does in relation to sibling tools like sc_checkout, sc_checkin, sc_diff, which are likely to be used. purpose has a clear action but no context on when to use it versus the other sc_* operations, nor does it mention any preconditions like having the file checked out.

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