git_git_rollback_to_commit

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

With no annotations, the description warns that all changes after the commit are lost, which is critical. However, it lacks details on reversibility, prerequisites, or side effects beyond the 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?

The description is a single sentence with a warning, front-loading the action and critical note. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the destructive nature adequately. However, it could clarify what 'config' refers to (e.g., Home Assistant configuration files) to fully remove ambiguity.

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 only parameter 'sha' is not described. The schema provides no description (0% coverage). The description does not clarify that 'sha' is a commit hash or its format, leaving the agent to infer from tool name.

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 action ('hard-reset') and the resource ('config to a previous commit') with a warning. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_git_rollback_file which operates on a single 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?

The description warns about destructive behavior but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_git_rollback_file or git_git_commit_all.

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