compose-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reject_file_changes

Reverts pending changes to a single file by restoring its .bridge.bak backup. Use when edits are incorrect and need to be discarded.

Instructions

Destructive: Reverts pending changes for a SINGLE file using .bridge.bak backup.

What it does: Rolls back byte-for-byte to the state before the recent surgical edit or replace_pattern.
When to use: When modifications to a specific file are incorrect and need to be discarded.
When NOT to use: File must be currently modified. Use reject_all_files for all files.
Side effects: Destructive rollback. Overwrites file with original backup and removes entry from journal.
Parameters:
  - file_path: relative path to project root (e.g., 'QuickActionsWidget.kt' or 'ui/theme/AppStrings.kt').
Returns:
  JSON string confirming rollback of the file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it flags 'Destructive', states the file is overwritten from the original backup and that the journal entry is removed, which tells the agent the change is discarded rather than merely marked. It omits auth/permission needs and the failure mode when no pending change or backup exists, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the destructive warning and then uses labeled sections, so an agent can scan for the relevant part quickly. Slightly padded by the trailing 'Returns: JSON string confirming rollback' line, which duplicates what the existing output schema already conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, when/when-not, side effects, the sole parameter, and the alternative sibling; the return value is already defined by an output schema, so the brief mention is a bonus rather than a gap. An agent has everything needed to call this destructive tool safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: file_path is documented as relative to project root with two concrete examples. For a single simple string parameter this is sufficient, though no guidance is given on path format edge cases (absolute paths, separators).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and scope: reverts pending changes for a SINGLE file, explicitly contrasting with reject_all_files for the multi-file case. The mechanism (.bridge.bak backup, byte-for-byte rollback) further disambiguates it from approve/reject siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit 'When to use' condition (modifications to a specific file are incorrect) and an explicit 'When NOT to use' precondition (file must be currently modified), then names the alternative tool reject_all_files for the all-files case. Nothing is left to inference.

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