revert_template_overrides

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

The destructiveHint annotation is true, and the description adds valuable scoping context by explicitly differentiating 'all overrides' from 'only the supplied override records', clarifying what will be affected. It does not state whether the operation is reversible, but given the annotation already signals destructiveness, this description provides sufficient behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the core action and the two modes without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the sentence structure makes the optional scope immediately obvious.

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 simple destructive tool with one required parameter and an optional array, the description covers both invocation modes and clearly identifies the target. It could additionally reference get_template_overrides as the source for override records, but the schema and sibling tool names make that connection discoverable.

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 50%: only entityId has a description, and it is merely 'Entity ID'. The description helps by implying entityId refers to a template instance and that overrides specifies a subset of override records. However, it does not explain the fields within each override record (resource_id, override_type, path), so parameter semantics remain partially under-specified.

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 states a specific verb ('Revert'), a clear resource ('overrides on a template instance'), and distinguishes two modes: all overrides vs only supplied override records. It fits its sibling set, particularly alongside get_template_overrides and apply_template_overrides, and tells an agent exactly what operation is offered.

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 when to use it: when a template instance's overrides need to be undone, either wholesale or selectively. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for choosing this over apply_template_overrides, get_template_overrides, or unlink_template_instances, but the two-mode phrasing gives functional context.

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