git_git_rollback_to_commit

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

The description warns that all changes after the commit are lost, which critically indicates destructiveness. However, with no annotations, the description should also cover irreversibility, permissions, or branch implications, but it only provides a basic warning.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action, the second warns. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks explanation of the input parameter 'sha' and related details (e.g., how to specify the commit). For a destructive operation, more safety context would be appropriate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter 'sha'. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning and format (e.g., full commit hash).

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 performs a hard reset of the config to a previous commit, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_git_rollback_file (file-level) and git_git_checkout_branch (branch-level).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_git_checkout_branch or git_git_rollback_file. The warning implies destructive use but does not provide context for choosing this over other git operations.

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