backtrack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the key mutation ('marking all descendants as pruned'), but it does not clarify whether the specified thought itself is also affected, whether pruning is reversible, or what downstream effects pruned descendants have.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and the consequence is stated immediately in a participial phrase.

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 two required string parameters and full schema coverage, so the core invocation is understandable. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves ambiguity around reversibility, whether the thought itself is pruned, and how this differs from prune_tree.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: treeId is described as 'The ID of the tree' and thoughtId as 'The ID of the thought to backtrack from'. The description helps by tying thoughtId to the backtracking operation, but it adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Backtrack') and resource ('a thought'), then specifies the exact outcome ('marking all descendants as pruned'). It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from sibling tools such as prune_tree.

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 wording implies the tool should be used when you want to abandon a thought branch by pruning all its descendants. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of how it relates to alternatives like prune_tree, move_subtree, or select_thought.

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