Revert Template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation 'undoes changes' but does not explain whether the revert is destructive, whether it affects other workspaces or the live version, whether it is reversible, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 the verb first and no wasted words. It is concise and well-structured, though it is arguably too terse for the complexity of the operation. Still, it meets the bar for conciseness without padding.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not visible in the input context, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of fingerprint, the relationship between account/container/workspace, or the expected result of the revert. An agent lacks critical context to call the tool safely and correctly.

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 all five parameters have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond that, only implicitly linking 'workspace' to workspace_id and 'template' to template_id. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 clearly identifies the resource as 'a workspace's changes to one custom template', which distinguishes it from other revert_* siblings by resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the counterpart (e.g., revert_tag, revert_trigger) or further differentiate the operation's scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a fingerprint from a prior read), no exclusions, and no reference to sibling revert tools. An agent must infer the context entirely from the name and description.

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