built_in_variables_revert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It identifies the tool as a write operation and lists prerequisites, but does not detail the revert behavior (e.g., overwriting, reversibility, or side effects). This is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 sentences, no redundancy. Action is front-loaded, prerequisites follow. Every word 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 5 required params, a destructive write, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and prerequisites but lacks parameter details and fuller behavioral context. It is minimally complete but has notable gaps.

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 only 20% (only 'type' described). The description mentions 'confirm' but not the other four parameters. It adds some meaning for confirm (requires true) but insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 it reverts changes to a built-in variable, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list, enable, disable through the revert action and write indicator.

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 explicitly mentions prerequisites (GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true, confirm=true) and implies when to use (when reverting built-in variable changes). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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