st.rollback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Restore' implies a mutating, potentially destructive operation, but the description does not state whether it overwrites current state, whether it is reversible, whether confirmation is required, or what side effects occur. The meaning of 'confirmed write operation' also remains unexplained.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is concise and easy to parse, though the ambiguous trailing phrase 'or a confirmed write operation' keeps it from being fully crisp.

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 mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is seriously underspecified. It conveys the core purpose but does not explain safe invocation, required confirmation steps, or the effect on current state, leaving an agent to guess.

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 mention 'id' or 'confirm' at all. 'id' could plausibly be a snapshot identifier and 'confirm' a confirmation flag, but the agent gets no guidance on how to use them correctly.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Restore,' and names the resource it acts on: a snapshot from st.snapshot or a confirmed write operation. This distinguishes it from st.snapshot, which creates snapshots. However, the phrase 'confirmed write operation' is left unefined and confuses the scope somewhat.

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 it should be used when a snapshot or confirmed write needs to be undone, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned beyond the source of the snapshot.

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