Revert Client

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core effect: client is restored to the branch-point container version and other workspace changes are left alone. It doesn't mention destructive/irreversible side effects, fingerprint requirements, permissions, or concurrent-change guarding, so the behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 tightly written sentences; the action is front-loaded and every clause adds meaning (scope, restoration target, preservation of other changes). 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?

The description covers what the tool does and its scope, and an output schema exists so return values are covered elsewhere. It lacks explicit caution about irreversible changes or the role of fingerprint, but for a single-entity revert operation with full schema documentation it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no extra semantic detail about parameters like fingerprint or the numeric IDs.

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?

States the precise action ('undo a workspace's changes to one client') and the restoration target ('state of the container version the workspace was branched from'). The 'one client' scope distinguishes it from bulk workspace operations and sibling entity-specific revert tools.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use: to selectively undo a single client's workspace changes while preserving all other workspace changes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing makes the intended use easily inferable.

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