Revert Variable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining that only the variable is restored, that the restoration target is the container version the workspace branched from, and that other workspace changes are left untouched. It does not mention irreversibility or fingerprint semantics, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the essential behavioral nuance 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 schema coverage and output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. It clearly states the action, scope, and restoration target. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly distinguishing itself from update_variable/delete_variable and clarifying fingerprint usage, but nothing critical is missing.

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 no additional parameter-level detail, such as the role of the fingerprint field, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Undo') and a precise resource ('a workspace's changes to one variable'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling revert tools for tags, triggers, folders, etc. It also clarifies the scope of the action, so an agent knows exactly what entity is affected.

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 context: use this when you need to undo a workspace's change to a single variable and restore it to the branch origin state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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