Revert Trigger

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 clearly states the operation is a mutation ('Undo', 'Restores') and specifies the scope (only the trigger, not other workspace changes). It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or edge cases (e.g., no changes to undo), but the core behavioral effect is transparent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant wording, and the scope is stated early. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema exists and all parameters are described, the description adequately explains the operation's semantics and scope. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but for a revert tool with clear parameters, this is sufficient. No missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 parameters are already documented with clear meanings. The description adds context about the branch point (container version) which helps understand the role of container_id and workspace_id, but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Undo') and the specific resource ('a workspace's changes to one trigger'). It explains the restoration target (container version the workspace branched from) and distinguishes it from other revert_* tools by specifying the trigger entity. This fully clarifies what the tool does and sets it apart from siblings like revert_tag or revert_variable.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to undo changes to a single trigger while preserving other workspace modifications. It explicitly notes 'leaving the workspace's other changes alone', which guides selection against broader operations like bulk_update_workspace or update_trigger. However, it does not name alternatives or give explicit 'when not to use' conditions, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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