change_set_revert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that original history is preserved, that the operation is reversible, and that stale or unsupported changes are rejected rather than partially reverted. This gives meaningful safety and failure semantics, though it does not detail all side effects or permission requirements.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by important safety guarantees. Both sentences add value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema field names. It earns a 4 because it is concise, though a bit more context would be welcome.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. The description covers high-level intent and safety but omits parameter roles, return behavior, and usage context. An agent would likely need additional documentation or examples to call this tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely implies the target is a ChangeSet and that only update-only changes are appropriate, but it does not explain the required changeSetId, the optional context fields, or any parameter behavior. Most parameters like task, actor, planId, reason, gitHead, projectRoot, chainScopeId, and taskContextId remain completely unexplained.

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 states a clear action: create a new reverse ChangeSet to revert a ChangeSet. It also adds safety and scope qualifiers ('safe, fully reversible update-only ChangeSet', 'rejected instead of partially reverted'), which clarify the intended operation. It does not explicitly differentiate against sibling tools, but the action and resource are specific enough for basic identification.

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 phrase 'for a safe, fully reversible update-only ChangeSet' implies when the tool is appropriate, and 'stale or unsupported changes are rejected' implies a boundary condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool or give exclusion criteria.

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