revert_revision

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

The description only says 'revert', implying a destructive action, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, side effects on related data, or if a new revision is created. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to provide adequate context.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, side effects, and permission requirements. It lacks completeness for a revert operation.

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?

The tool description does not describe any parameters, so schema description coverage is 0%. However, the input schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (id, entity, revision_id), so the agent can understand them from the schema. Thus the description adds no value beyond the schema, but the schema suffices.

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), the resource (Metabase entity), and the target (previous revision). It distinguishes from more specific sibling tools like revert_dashboard by generalizing to any entity type, though it does not enumerate supported entity types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like revert_dashboard or list_revisions. There is no mention of prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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