Restore a single file to its HEAD state, discarding uncommitted changes. Returns restored file path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | No | Repo-relative path to the file to restore. | |
| workingDirectory | No | Git repo path. Default current directory. | . |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries burden. Clearly states it discards uncommitted changes and returns path, indicating destructive but intentional behavior. Lacks details on reversibility or prerequisites.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, effect, and return value. No missing critical information.
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 100%; parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters.
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?
Description clearly states verb (restore), resource (single file to HEAD state), and side effect (discarding uncommitted changes). Distinguishes from sibling tools like undo_changes.
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?
Implies use for discarding uncommitted changes on a single file, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Context signals show siblings like undo_changes but not compared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.