transformations_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a write requiring confirmation, implying it is potentially destructive. However, it does not detail other behavioral traits like effects on other entities or reversibility.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a [WRITE] prefix to immediately signal the operation type. Every phrase is purposeful.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits any mention of return values, the role of the 'fingerprint' parameter, and does not compensate for the absence of annotation context.

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?

All parameters are already described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal value by reiterating the confirm requirement. It does not enhance understanding of other parameters like fingerprint.

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 a specific verb ('revert') and resource ('GTM transformation'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like transformations_update or transformations_delete by specifying the revert operation.

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 provides context (when to revert) and prerequisites (GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true, confirm=true), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or advise when not to use this tool compared to other transformations tools.

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