git_git_rollback_to_commit

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

Warns that all changes after the commit are permanently lost, and explains that without confirm=True it returns a safety prompt. This is valuable since no annotations are provided, though it could detail side effects more.

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: first sets purpose, second gives warning and usage condition. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 destructive 2-param tool with no annotations, the warning and confirm explanation are good, but missing sha parameter details and output description (output schema exists). Adequate but not thorough.

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 adds context: 'previous commit' relates to sha and 'confirm=True' explains the boolean. However, sha format and how to obtain it are missing.

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 a specific verb 'Hard-reset' and resource 'config to a previous commit', and the warning distinguishes this irreversible full reset from siblings like git_git_rollback_file.

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 guidance on when to use this vs alternative Git tools (e.g., git_git_diff, git_git_rollback_file). The description only explains the confirmation flag, not use cases or prerequisites.

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