rollback_planUndo an applied plan by generating a new plan that reverses its changes; nothing is written until you apply it.
Build a NEW plan undoing what plan_id applied (nothing is written; apply it like any plan).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes | Plan id returned by the plan_* tool | |
| client_id | No | Client id from clients_list; empty uses the only client |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful context by saying 'nothing is written' and that the resulting plan must be applied separately. This reinforces the non-mutating nature and clarifies the two-step rollback workflow beyond what the annotations alone convey.
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 filler. Every clause contributes to understanding what the tool does and how it fits into the plan/apply workflow.
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 simple two-parameter plan-building tool, the description supplies the critical behavioral context: it creates a new plan, writes nothing, and must be applied separately. It does not describe the return value explicitly, but 'Build a NEW plan' sufficiently implies that a plan object is produced.
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 100%, so both plan_id and client_id are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that plan_id refers to the plan being undone, but adds no syntax or client_id guidance beyond the structured fields, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Build a NEW plan') and resource ('undoing what plan_id applied'), making clear this creates a rollback plan rather than applying one. The phrase 'apply it like any plan' distinguishes it from apply tools and clarifies its role among plan-building siblings.
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 explains the immediate workflow: use this to build a plan, then apply it like any other plan. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as plan_get or plan_list, but the operational context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.