rollback_to_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that changes are uncommitted and explains mode behaviors as git checkout vs undo commits. However, it omits the force/overwrite guard behavior, which is left to the schema.

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?

Single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with concise mode semantics. Every clause earns its place; no redundant wording.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (uncommitted restore, modes) and a usage workflow. It does not mention force/path handling, but the schema already documents these. Overall sufficient for selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'mode' by mapping to git commands and clarifies the uncommitted nature. It does not add detail for commitSha or projectName beyond schema, but the mode explanation elevates it.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Restore' and resource 'workspace to a prior commit', with explicit mode distinctions ('restore' vs 'revert'). The description also distinguishes from siblings by outlining the uncommitted-changes workflow and referencing diff_local/push_local as follow-ups.

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?

Provides clear usage context: restore as uncommitted changes, review with diff_local, then push_local. This implies the intended workflow and distinguishes from direct commit tools, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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