rhino_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a revert to the last saved state, which implies destructive consequences, but it does not explicitly warn that unsaved changes will be lost or that this is not equivalent to a simple undo.

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 core action sentence is short and front-loaded, but the Args and Returns sections are mostly boilerplate. The Args line is inaccurate, and the Returns line is redundant given the stated output schema, so not 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool, and the primary behavior is stated. However, the absence of any warning about the destructive nature of the operation, combined with the misleading Args section, leaves the description incomplete for safe and correct use.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything the agent needs. However, the description's 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance' introduces a parameter not present in the schema, which is misleading and adds negative value rather than clarifying how to invoke the tool.

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 states a specific action ('Revert') and a clear resource ('the current document') with a precise destination ('its last saved state'). It is clear enough to be distinguishable from undo in meaning, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_undo, rhino_redo, or rhino_cmd_undo. The description implies a use case but never states prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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