revert_series_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive effect (new points removed), the restorative effect (updated points get previous values), and a refusal condition dependent on batch ordering. It omits permissions/auth requirements and whether the revert itself can be undone, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the failure condition, then the usage gate. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers effects, preconditions, and invocation policy. The main remaining gap is that `batch_id` provenance is never established, which matters for a tool whose whole input is that opaque id.

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?

There is a single required parameter, `batch_id`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it — no format, no source (e.g., from a prior record_series call), no scope. The schema alone leaves the agent guessing what a valid batch id looks like.

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 uses a specific verb ("Undo") plus resource ("a whole series batch") and then defines exactly what that means: new points removed, updated points restored to prior values. That is far more precise than a bare 'revert'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling `ingest_revert`, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this tool.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use gate ("Only when the user asks") and a concrete precondition/refusal rule — if a later batch touched the same points the call is refused and you must revert that one first — which effectively points to an alternative action. It stops short of naming sibling tools or other alternatives, so there is no explicit tool-routing guidance.

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