zones_revert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature via [WRITE] and mentions the revert behavior. It could elaborate on consequences (e.g., discarding workspace changes), but it is still informative.

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: two sentences covering the action and prerequisites. No redundant text; the [WRITE] prefix efficiently signals the operation type.

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 description lacks details about return values or error conditions (no output schema). It is adequate for a simple revert but could be more complete given the tool's parameters and lack of output 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal parameter info beyond what the schema provides. The mention of confirm is redundant with the schema description, and no additional parameter guidance is given.

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 action: revert workspace changes to a GTM zone back to its last container-version state. It specifies the resource (zone) and scope (workspace changes), distinguishing it from siblings like zones_update or zones_delete.

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 explicit prerequisites: requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true. This helps the agent know when it's usable, though it doesn't compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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