Roll back every patch applied during the current session, newest first, when a batch fails partway.
Undo every patch applied in this session, newest first. Use when a batch has gone wrong partway: you rarely want to undo one patch out of twenty, you want to undo the batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: patches are undone newest-first. It omits other important traits for a destructive operation — whether the undo is itself reversible, atomicity/partial-failure behavior, and permission requirements — so it is adequate but incomplete.
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 with the action and scope front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by justifying usage rather than restating the name. No 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 output schema, annotations, or parameters, the description must stand alone, and it covers scope, ordering, and intent well. It still leaves safety-relevant gaps (reversibility of the undo, partial-failure handling) that matter for a batch-mutating operation.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema offers nothing to interpret and the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter discussion, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 (undo) with an explicit resource and scope (every patch in this session), plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling revert_patch by stressing batch-level scope ('you rarely want to undo one patch out of twenty'), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.
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?
Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use when a batch has gone wrong partway.' However, it never names the alternative tool (revert_patch) or states a when-not case, so the agent must infer the boundary from the rhetorical aside rather than an explicit rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.