git_git_rollback_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'restore' and 'undo changes' but lacks detail on side effects (e.g., does it modify working tree only? create a commit? require clean state?). The behavior is ambiguous for a git operation.

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 of 18 words that directly conveys the tool's purpose and default behavior. No unnecessary information or verbosity.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core function and default. However, it lacks explicit guidance on base path for relative_path and does not clarify the exact operational behavior (e.g., whether it stages changes or just modifies working tree). Adequate but with gaps.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'sha' parameter and its default ('specific commit, default last commit = undo changes'). However, 'relative_path' is not clarified (e.g., relative to what base directory). Partial compensation.

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 it restores a single file to a state at a specific commit, with default being the last commit (undo changes). It distinguishes from sibling 'git_git_rollback_to_commit' which likely rolls back the entire repository, making this specific for file-level rollback.

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 for undoing changes to a single file, but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'git_git_rollback_to_commit'. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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