Snapshot workspace

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it names the return value (snapshot artefact id), states that this id is the only valid target for rollback and that labels cannot be used to select snapshots, and discloses the precise scope of what a rollback actually restores. readOnlyHint=false with a tool that 'changes nothing' is consistent because an artefact is written, not workspace state mutated.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return contract, then the rollback caveat. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the label-versus-id point is partly a restatement of the schema's own description of label.

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, the description correctly supplies the return value and its downstream use. It also covers the crucial limitation that snapshots are a narrow safety net covering only mode ceiling and member roles, which is exactly the ambiguity that would otherwise cause an agent to over-trust rollback.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning: it clarifies that label is human-facing only and that rollback selects by artefact id, which is the single most likely misuse of the label parameter. The include parameter's capture scope is left to the schema.

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?

Specific verb (capture) plus resource (workspace state as an artefact), and it explicitly frames the tool against chap.control.rollback, which it names. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like chap.control.rollback or chap.audit.read 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?

States the triggering condition clearly: capture before a change you may want to undo. It also names the related tool (rollback) and the artefact-id contract that links them. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, but the 'narrow safety net' caveat effectively bounds expectations.

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