Roll back to snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the rollback is appended to the audit log rather than rewriting history, and only mode ceiling plus member roles are reapplied. It still omits permission requirements and whether a rollback can itself be undone.

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, zero filler, and the most consequential fact (what gets restored) is front-loaded. Nothing is repeated that the schema already carries in more detail.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with five parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the essential semantics: what is restored, what is not, and the audit-append behavior. Gaps remain around permissions and side effects on in-flight tasks, but the annotated safety profile and a fully documented schema carry most of the load.

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 the schema already explains each parameter, including the nuanced what_to_restore semantics and the -32062 refusal code. The description's restatement that mode ceiling and member roles are restored adds only marginal meaning over that schema text, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Restore workspace state from a snapshot') and immediately narrows scope to what is actually reapplied (mode ceiling, member roles). It reads as the clear inverse of the sibling chap.control.snapshot tool, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against alternatives such as chap.control.cancel, chap.control.supersede, or chap.control.set_mode_ceiling. The only chaining hint ('artefact id returned by chap.control.snapshot') lives in the schema, not the description.

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