rollback_change

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by declaring 'never rewrites history' and 'creating a new forward commit that restores the prior state'. It does not detail permission requirements or conflict behavior, but the key mutation semantics are transparent.

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?

One well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the safety property is included in the same sentence, and nothing irrelevant is present.

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 description covers the main call context: target commit, branch scope, operation type, and safety guarantee. It does not describe the return value or behavior when the commit is not mergable, but these are secondary for prompting an agent to make the initial call.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives context for the commit_sha and project_id by referring to a 'previously merged commit' and 'project's default branch', but it does not explicitly explain the rationale parameter or specify input formats such as full SHA vs short SHA.

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 starts with a specific verb and object, 'Roll back a previously merged commit', and distinguishes the behavior from history-rewriting operations by explicitly stating it creates a new forward commit. This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like rebase_change or merge_change.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use the tool: only for previously merged commits on the project's default branch. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the stated preconditions provide enough guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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