Revert Folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'undo' without clarifying whether the operation is destructive or irreversible, what happens to current workspace changes, whether the fingerprint is needed for concurrency, or what permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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?

Although the schema and output schema cover parameters and return values, the lack of annotations and behavioral/usage context leaves the description incomplete for a revert operation. An agent does not learn the side effects, when this tool applies, or the role of the fingerprint parameter.

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 all parameters. The description adds little beyond indicating the folder and workspace context, which maps to existing folder_id and workspace_id fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('folder') and scopes the action to 'a workspace's changes'. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling revert_* tools for other entity types or with update/delete folder actions; the resource name is the main differentiator.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. An agent cannot determine from the description when to choose revert_folder over update_folder, delete_folder, or other revert_* tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives.

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