按快照回滚页面

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key destructive effects: current top-level blocks are deleted, all block IDs change, and comments are not restored. It also states the confirm requirement, though it does not mention permissions or whether the rollback itself can be undone.

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?

Three short sentences, with the destructive effects and confirm requirement front-loaded. Every sentence adds operational value and there is no redundant 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?

For a destructive rollback tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential source, side effects, and confirmation requirement. It could be more complete by mentioning permissions or return behavior, but the core context an agent needs is present.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the snapshot source and confirm requirement but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: rebuild the page using a snapshot returned by apply_plan. It clearly distinguishes rollback from apply_plan by tying the snapshot source to apply_plan, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: the snapshot must come from apply_plan, and confirm: true is mandatory. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative rollback/preview tools, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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