Revert Transformation

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 transparently states the core side effect: the transformation is restored to the branch point state and other workspace changes are preserved. It does not, however, mention fingerprint semantics, permission requirements, or failure behavior, which would add further transparency.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential scoping detail without redundancy.

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?

Given the straightforward parameter set, an output schema, and the clear description of the operation's scope, the definition is mostly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance around the fingerprint parameter and any conditions under which the revert might fail, but the essential calling context is covered.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning; its explanation focuses on the operation rather than the parameters. The fingerprint parameter remains only minimally described in the schema as 'Fingerprint from a previous read,' and the description does not clarify when it should be used.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Undo a workspace's changes to one transformation.' It further clarifies the exact effect by stating it 'restores the transformation to the state of the container version the workspace was branched from,' making the purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from generic update or delete 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?

The description provides clear contextual guidance by emphasizing 'leaving the workspace's other changes alone,' which tells an agent this tool is scoped to a single transformation rather than the whole workspace. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over broader workspace operations.

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