rollback_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation creates a new commit and never rewrites history, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects like permissions or reversibility, but the non-destructive nature is clearly highlighted.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and constraint, efficiently covering the core purpose and the key non-rewrite guarantee.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the main operation but omits details such as prerequisites (commit must be merged), possible errors, return value, and the fate of the original commit. Given no structured safety or output info, the description could reasonably add more context without becoming verbose.

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 0% — the description mentions no parameters. It does not explain that project_id identifies the project, commit_sha is the commit to revert, or that rationale is an optional reason. The parameter names are semi-explicit, but the description adds zero semantic value, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('roll back') and resource ('previously merged commit') and clarifies the mechanism (creating a new forward commit) and scope (default branch). It clearly differentiates from siblings like rebase_change (which rewrites history) and abandon_change (which likely affects unmerged changes).

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 clear when-to-use context: only for previously merged commits on the default branch. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the 'previously merged' qualifier and the emphasis on not rewriting history provide strong implicit guidance.

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