Roll back a transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description explains why: this call only previews and the mutation happens elsewhere via apply_changes plus confirm. It also adds a failure condition (files changed since the commit). It stops short of describing what the preview returns or how large a change set can be, so it is solid but not rich beyond the safety profile.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the refusal condition and the destructive follow-up. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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 one-parameter preview tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, failure mode, and the follow-up call. The only shortfall is that it does not characterize the preview's contents, which an agent might want before presenting results.

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 0% for the single transactionId parameter, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It does add that the transaction must be committed and that its backup is used, but it says nothing about the identifier's form or how to obtain one, leaving a gap the schema cannot fill.

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?

States a specific verb (preview restoring files) and resource (a committed transaction's backup), and makes clear upfront that this tool does NOT perform the rollback itself. That distinction from the name 'rollback_transaction' is exactly what an agent needs.

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?

Gives the refusal condition ('Refused if those files changed afterwards') and routes the destructive step to a named sibling: 'apply it with apply_changes + confirm.' When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all explicit.

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