rollback_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the rollback happens in reverse order, that there are drift preconditions, and that dry-run is optional. This is substantive behavior context, though it does not explicitly mention permission requirements or the exact failure mode when drift is detected without force.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the core action and key conditions. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the operation's core behavior and safety features. It could mention return values or error handling, but those are less critical for a rollback tool, and the schema covers the required input.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking 'drift preconditions' to the force parameter and explicitly calling out dry_run as optional, which helps the agent understand the purpose of these parameters beyond their schemas.

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 clearly states the tool's function: reverts a recorded transaction in reverse order. It specifies the resource (transaction) and the action (revert), and the mention of drift preconditions and dry-run distinguishes it from other sibling tools that focus on analysis or patching.

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 when to use this tool: to revert a recorded transaction, with a safety mechanism for drift. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are mostly read/analysis tools.

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