GTM: Revert change

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, yet the description states the tool resets an entity to the live version and removes entities newly created in the workspace. Both overwriting workspace edits and deleting a pending entity are destructive updates, so the description and the annotation directly conflict. The disclosure itself is valuable, but it exposes that the supplied annotation misrepresents the tool's behavior.

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: the core action first, then the deletion consequence. Every clause carries information and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core effect but omits what is returned on success, whether a fingerprint mismatch is the only failure mode, and what happens to other entities in the workspace. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent operating a mutation.

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 83%, and the schema already documents accountId, containerId, workspaceId, entityType with an enum, and the optional fingerprint concurrency guard. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it resets a workspace entity to the live version, and it adds the notable side effect that a workspace-only entity is removed. What keeps this from a 5 is that it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as gtm_sync_workspace or gtm_resolve_conflict, which an agent must be able to tell apart.

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?

Nothing in the description says when to reach for this tool rather than gtm_save_entity, gtm_sync_workspace, or gtm_resolve_conflict, and there are no stated prerequisites such as whether the workspace must be conflict-free or whether uncommitted changes are lost. The agent can infer the purpose but must guess at the routing decision.

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