change_set_revert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: a new reverse ChangeSet is created, original history is preserved, and stale or unsupported changes are rejected rather than partially reverted. This goes beyond the tool name, though it omits details like permissions or side effects.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, safety properties, and rejection behavior with no filler. The most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

Despite a concise behavioral summary, the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema; the description does not explain what each parameter does, what the successful result looks like, or what inputs are required beyond changeSetId. This is insufficient for reliable invocation of a 9-parameter tool.

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% and the description adds no meaning for any of the 9 parameters. Required changeSetId is obvious from the schema, but parameters like task, actor, planId, reason, gitHead, projectRoot, chainScopeId, and includeStructured are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 specific action ('Create a new reverse ChangeSet') on a specific resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like graph_mutate or block_code_mutate. The constraint 'update-only ChangeSet' further clarifies scope.

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 description identifies the intended use case: reverting a 'safe, fully reversible update-only ChangeSet.' It clearly implies when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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