svn_revert

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'guarded' but does not explain what guards exist (e.g., safety checks, irreversible changes). No info on side effects, permissions, or error states.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is concise but could incorporate more details without becoming overly long.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites like having a clean working copy. The term 'guarded' is ambiguous.

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 50% (cwd and paths have descriptions; dryRun and allowRecursive have none). The tool description adds no further detail about these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool performs 'svn revert for explicit paths', specifies 'preview or perform', and uses the term 'guarded' to hint at safety checks. It effectively distinguishes from other svn tools by focusing on explicit paths.

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 phrase 'Preview or perform' implies a dry-run option, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Alternatives among siblings (e.g., svn_cleanup, svn_diagnose) are not mentioned.

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