import_revert

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added value is the concrete destruction surface — exactly which entity types get removed and that the job is marked rather than deleted. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens to a job in an ineligible state, which would have completed the picture.

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, zero filler. The action and its destructive scope come first, and the supporting rationale trails it.

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, no-output-schema tool the description covers trigger conditions, destroyed entities, and resulting state. The one gap is the response shape — whether it reports counts or a summary — which the absent output schema leaves to the description.

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 override), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description mentions none of them; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (revert) plus resource (import job) and an explicit enumeration of the side effects: deleting invoices and lines, receipts, clients, payments, and flagging the job as reverted. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does or how it differs from import_execute/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?

States the eligible precondition ('completed or cancelled import job') and gives concrete motivating scenarios (wrong column mapping, wrong statement grouping). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but for a revert operation there is no plausible competing tool, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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