sc_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that reverting is likely destructive (discarding local changes), whether it requires prior checkout, or if it reverts to a specific revision. This omission is significant for a source control mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat under-specified, missing critical detail about behavior, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

For a potentially destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about side effects, return values, or prerequisites, which is crucial for safe invocation despite the simple parameter schema.

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 fully documents the 'paths' parameter with description 'File paths to revert', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: 'Revert file(s) in source control.' The verb 'revert' and resource 'file(s) in source control' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sc_checkout, sc_checkin, and sc_diff.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which sc_revert is preferable over sc_checkout or sc_diff.

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