opencode_session_unrevert

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. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if there is nothing reverted, whether it is scoped to the latest revert or all reverts in the session, or whether it mutates session history irreversibly.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a state-changing session operation — the brevity comes at the cost of missing context rather than from trimming filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it omits return behavior, idempotency, error conditions, and the relationship to revert. For a session-state mutation tool this leaves material gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: 'directory' is documented in the schema, while 'id' has no description but is self-evidently the session identifier given the tool name. The description adds nothing about parameter format or scoping, so this is a baseline-3 case where the schema does most of the work.

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 (restore) and resource (reverted messages in a session), and the name opencode_session_unrevert makes the inverse relationship to opencode_session_revert legible. It stops short of naming the sibling or defining what 'reverted' means, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in the text itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. that a revert must have occurred first), and no explicit pointer to opencode_session_revert as the counterpart operation. The agent must infer the usage entirely from the tool name.

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