templates_revert

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

The description identifies the operation as a write ([WRITE]) and mentions the revert action. However, it does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as whether the operation is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or the effect on concurrent edits. The fingerprint parameter hints at optimistic locking but is not explained. With no annotations provided, the description could provide more transparency.

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 sentence followed by a requirement note. It is extremely concise, front-loads the action type [WRITE], and avoids any extraneous text. Every part serves a purpose.

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 tool has 6 parameters (5 required) and no output schema. The description explains the core operation and prerequisites but does not mention the return value (likely the reverted template or a success indicator) or how the fingerprint parameter is used for optimistic locking. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the purpose of confirm or fingerprint beyond the schema's own minidescriptions.

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 '[WRITE] Revert workspace changes to a GTM template back to its last container-version state.' It identifies the specific action (revert), resource (template), and scope (workspace changes to container version). This distinguishes it from sibling revert tools like clients_revert or zones_revert which apply to different resources.

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 specifies prerequisites: 'Requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true.' This tells the agent when the tool can be invoked and the required confirm parameter. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the intended use case.

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