Removes every timeline item created after a given checkpoint returned by fusion_run, letting you undo design steps and return the model to an earlier parametric state.
Delete every timeline item after checkpoint (a value returned by fusion_run).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkpoint | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is to add scope, and it does: it specifies exactly what is removed (every timeline item after the checkpoint), which is real context beyond the annotation. It stops short of saying the deletion is irreversible or whether confirmation is required.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the destructive verb and scope, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
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?
A single-required-param destructive mutation with no output schema needs a bit more: whether the checkpoint item itself survives, whether the operation is reversible, and what happens on a stale/unknown checkpoint are all unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a destructive tool.
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 schema only says 'integer' with title 'Checkpoint'. The description supplies the crucial semantic that the value must come from fusion_run, which is the single most important fact for calling this tool correctly.
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 ('delete') and resource ('every timeline item after checkpoint'), which is far more informative than the bare name fusion_rollback. It is distinguishable from siblings like fusion_run and fusion_status, though the word 'timeline' is not defined anywhere.
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 name and the parenthetical pointing at fusion_run imply the use case (undo work back to a known point), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of prerequisites such as an active session, and no alternative suggested.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.