clients_revert

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds write context and prerequisites, but does not disclose destructive nature, scope of reverted changes, or handling of fingerprint parameter. Lacks details about what exactly gets reverted.

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: first describes action and resource, second states prerequisites. No fluff, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Provides high-level purpose and prerequisites. Lacks details about return value (no output schema) and potential failure conditions. However, given the simple parameter set and no nested objects, it is mostly adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level info beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.

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 specific verb 'revert' and resource 'GTM client', and clearly distinguishes from other revert tools for different entities (e.g., built_in_variables_revert, templates_revert). The '[WRITE]' prefix further clarifies the operation type.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true. It implies the tool is for undoing client workspace changes, but does not compare with alternatives like clients_update or other revert tools for different entities.

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