opencode_session_revert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to meet it. It does not state whether the reversion is destructive, whether it can be undone (despite an unrevert sibling existing), what state the message is left in, or whether permissions are required. Only the bare mutation verb is conveyed.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so there is nothing to trim. But it is under-specified rather than tight, conveying almost no information beyond the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 75% undocumented parameters, the description is substantially incomplete. An agent lacks the information needed to call this correctly or understand its effects.

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 low at 25%: only 'directory' is documented, while id, messageID, and partID are bare strings. The description adds no parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate – an agent gets no hint about what 'partID' selects or how messageID relates to id.

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 names a specific verb ('revert') and resource ('a message in a session'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'revert' is jargon and the description does not explain what reverting a message actually does, nor does it distinguish this tool from its obvious sibling opencode_session_unrevert. It is adequate but leaves the core semantics unclear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Critically, the sibling opencode_session_unrevert exists but is never mentioned, so an agent has no signal about which direction of the operation to pick. The description provides no context or exclusions.

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