galbook_rewind

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether rewinding restores prior state, whether it undoes recorded choices in galbook_log, what happens if steps exceed history, or whether server-side default book/agent settings are applied.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated immediately and the bilingual version adding no ambiguity. It could be stronger if the concise statement also carried one sentence of operational context, but there is no wasted wording.

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 state-mutating navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the resulting state, error behavior when no prior choice exists, or how it differs from loading a save or making a new choice.

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 input schema already documents book, agent, and steps. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema baseline, such as how multiple steps interact with history boundaries or what 'previous choice' means in terms of the server's state model.

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 states a specific action: going back to a previous choice so the player can choose again. This is clearer than a tautology and distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like galbook_next and galbook_choose through the word 'previous'. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with those adjacent navigation tools.

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 implies usage by saying 'Go back to the previous choice to choose again', but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer whether to call galbook_rewind versus galbook_choose, galbook_next, or galbook_load when correcting a choice.

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