rollback_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that content is restored from backup, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting current file content, whether the operation is destructive, prerequisites like the fix having been applied, or error behavior if the fixId is invalid. The '[mode: real]' prefix hints at actual effects but lacks detail.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool lacks important context. For a rollback operation, crucial details are missing: what happens to the current files, whether the operation is reversible, whether permissions are needed, and what the backup source is. The simplicity of the parameter schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 input schema lists a single required parameter 'fixId' with type string, but the description provides zero explanation of what this parameter represents. The name 'fixId' is self-explanatory as an identifier, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should explicitly state that fixId refers to the fix to roll back. It does not, leaving the agent to infer the meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Restore the pre-apply file content from the backup.' It uses a specific verb ('Restore'), identifies the resource (pre-apply file content), and the source (backup), making it unambiguous. The name 'rollback_fix' further reinforces its role, distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_fix.

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 the tool is used to undo an applied fix by restoring backed-up content, which is clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of explicit guideline-level clarity but remains clearly contextual.

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