revert_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the most important part: it explicitly states that unsaved changes are discarded, flagging the destructive, irreversible consequence before an agent calls it. It omits secondary details (auth/permission requirements, behavior when no board is open, error cases), so it stops short of 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb first and the data source ('from disk') second. Every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the essential information an agent needs (a no-argument action that destroys unsaved work and reloads from disk) is present. Only edge-case behavior, such as what happens with no document open, is left unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter syntax or format clarification is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Discard unsaved changes and reload') on a specific resource ('the open PCB from disk'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from save_board/save_board_as, which persist changes rather than throw them away.

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 use case is inferable (undo uncommitted edits by reloading from disk), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites like an open document, and no named alternative such as save_board for agents that want to keep changes.

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