chap.control.rollback

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 a key side effect—'the rollback is appended to the audit log rather than rewriting it'—and states which snapshot aspects are reapplied. It does not mention authorization requirements or explicitly warn that current state is overwritten, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral caveats. Every clause 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 the full schema coverage and the description's clear high-level behavior, this is largely complete for correct invocation. It would benefit from stating what the rollback returns or what happens on failure beyond the schema's -32062 note, but the essential behavioral context is present.

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%, so each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully carries that responsibility.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Restore workspace state from a snapshot.' It also names the precise aspects that are restored (mode ceiling and member roles), which differentiates it from snapshot creation and other control operations. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you need to restore a workspace from a previously captured snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as chap.control.supersede or chap.control.cancel, nor does it mention 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.