Rewind a workspace to a prior snapshot atomically without changing .git history. Restores project state from a snapshot ID for safe rollback during AI coding sessions.
Atomically rewind the workspace to a previous snapshot without altering .git history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_id | Yes | Snapshot ID (e.g. snap_001) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add two meaningful traits beyond the schema: the operation is 'atomic' (all-or-nothing) and it does not touch .git history. But it is silent on whether this is destructive, what happens to current uncommitted workspace state, reversibility, and permission requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope constraint are stated immediately and every clause carries information.
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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not disclose destructiveness, reversibility, or the fate of current workspace state. The atomicity and .git-exclusion notes help, but an agent still lacks key facts for safe invocation.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents snapshot_id including an example format. The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline of 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 specific verb (rewind) and resource (workspace to a previous snapshot), with a useful scope qualifier that the operation leaves .git history untouched. It is clearly distinguishable from cortex_snapshot_create, though it never names 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 phrase 'without altering .git history' implies this is the tool to use when you want to restore workspace state without a git-based reset, which is a reasonable implied usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative named, so the agent must infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.