ingest_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key mutation semantics: records are retracted but 'history kept', and series points are reverted — a meaningful reversibility/side-effect statement. It omits permissions required, whether the revert is itself undoable, and error behavior for an already-reverted or unknown batch.

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 tight sentences, effect described first and the usage gate second, with no filler. Every clause adds information.

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?

Complexity is low (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The effect, reversibility nuance, and usage gate are covered; only permissions and failure modes are missing for a destructive operation.

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 required parameter (batch_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description implies the batch is the unit of operation ('one ingest batch') but never explains where batch_id comes from or its format; baseline 3 for a self-evident identifier the description only implicitly covers.

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 and resource ('Undo one ingest batch') and immediately names the concrete effects: records retracted, series points reverted. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling revert_series_batch, so the agent must guess which scope applies.

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?

'Only when the user asks' is an explicit, unusually strong usage gate that tells the agent this is a user-initiated, not autonomous, action. It stops short of naming alternatives (ingest_apply, ingest_preview, revert_series_batch) or when-not conditions beyond that single gate.

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