import_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive action (deletes every record it created) and lists the record types (invoices, receipts, clients, payments). However, it does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, what happens if the job is already reverted or in an unexpected state, or any permission requirements. It gives the core behavior but lacks edge-case 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 exactly two sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Revert a completed or cancelled import job...'), followed by the concrete effect and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, lists the affected record types, and provides a realistic usage scenario. It also mentions the prerequisite state (completed or cancelled). However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the job is already reverted or not in a valid state) and does not mention whether the operation is reversible. This is a minor gap given the tool's specificity.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('id' and 'companyId'), so the schema already documents them fully. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameter usage, such as how to obtain the id or when to use companyId. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate 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 states a specific verb ('Revert'), a specific resource ('import job'), and precisely what the action does (deletes records created by the import and marks the job as reverted). It also names the exact record types affected, distinguishing it clearly from other import-related tools like import_execute or import_get.

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 gives a clear, concrete use case: 'undo an import that mapped the wrong columns or grouped the statement the wrong way.' This tells the agent when to reach for this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. Since it's a specialized revert action, the context is clear enough, but excluding other scenarios would make it a 5.

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