Revision Revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine value by disclosing the atomic failure mode ("a failure leaves the entity untouched"), which is not in any structured field. However, it omits whether a revert creates a new revision, whether it is reversible, and any permission/auth requirements for this mutation.

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 tight sentences plus a parenthetical, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Information density is high and every clause contributes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, which relieves some burden. But for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, missing permission requirements, side effects on existing revisions, and parameter formats leave an agent under-informed.

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 0% across three required parameters (entity_type, entity_id, revision_id), so the description must compensate for the gap and does not. It refers to "entity" and "revision" only generically, giving no format, allowed values for entity_type, or how revision_id is obtained.

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 ("Revert") and resource ("an entity to a specific revision"), and the second sentence clarifies the actual mechanism (applies the revision's field values to the current entity). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling revision_get/revision_list/revision_delete/revision_diff operations.

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 purpose makes the basic use case self-evident, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative steps (e.g. revision_diff to preview before reverting) or prerequisites such as needing a revision_id from revision_list. Usage is only implied.

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