rollback_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status 'delegate' with a remediation hint and does not perform the restore itself. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is destructive or read-only.

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 very short (3 sentences) and gets the main point across immediately. It is efficiently structured, though slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 a simple stub with no output schema. The description explains the delegation but lacks parameter explanations and concrete usage context, making it insufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly without additional guesswork.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (original, restore_target, expected_sha256, confirm_legal). The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning beyond the schema, which has only titles.

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 that the tool delegates to re-patch.restore_original for byte-restore, distinguishing it from sibling patching tools. However, it could be more explicit about the overall goal of rolling back a patch.

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 that when a byte-restore is needed, this stub should be called and then re-patch.restore_original should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not conditions.

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