Revert Zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and explains the core behavior precisely: it restores the zone to the container version state the workspace was branched from and leaves other workspace changes untouched. It does not disclose permanence or concurrency implications, but the essential mutation semantics are clear.

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 compact sentences front-load the action and then add the precise restoration target. No redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The description is complete enough for core invocations: it identifies the operation, the scope, and the exact restore source. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, though it could mention side effects or fingerprint usage for full completeness.

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 description adds contextual meaning about the workspace/container/zone relationship, but it does not elaborate on individual parameters such as fingerprint beyond what the schema already says.

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 zone.' It distinguishes this from sibling revert_* tools by naming the zone as the target and by scoping to a single workspace, so the agent can identify it without reading the schema.

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool: when a workspace's changes to one zone need to be undone. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the many revert_* siblings the resource-specific wording gives enough context to select it.

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