fscp_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the revert is complete and not partial, implying it discards all changes since archive open. This is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session), potential destructiveness to unsaved work, or any side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the key limitation (no partial revert) is stated clearly. Every word earns its place.

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, has an output schema (so return values need not be explained), and no annotations. The description covers the main behavior and a limitation, but omits any explanation of the handle parameter and any prerequisites. For a reversible/destructive operation, more context could be given, so it's just adequate.

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% for the only parameter 'handle'. The description does not explain what 'handle' refers to (presumably the session/archive handle). Since there is no schema description and the tool text ignores the parameter, an agent may guess its meaning from context, but the description adds no value beyond the schema placeholder. This is a gap.

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 action ('revert') on a clear resource ('all edits of the session') and defines the target state ('at the moment of opening the archive'). It also notes a key constraint (no partial revert), which helps distinguish it from other fscp_* tools like fscp_save or fscp_diff. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage: when you need to undo session edits. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. There are related tools like fscp_diff (to view changes) and fscp_save (to commit changes), but no explicit routing. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative mentions.

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