plan_rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this tool mutates state, what the planning step actually does, prerequisites (e.g., existence of a before-snapshot), or side effects. The 'plan' prefix suggests non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and communicates the core purpose without filler.

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?

Given no annotations, one parameter, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., before-snapshot availability), relationship to sibling tools, or clarify parameter semantics. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks necessary context for selection and invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for change_id, and the description does not directly explain that change_id is the identifier of the previously applied update. It can be inferred from context, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 (plan restoring) and the resource (previously applied update from local before-snapshot). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apply_change or other plan_* tools, but the rollback concept is distinct enough.

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 usage context (when you want to plan a rollback of an update) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative plan tools or apply_change, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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