Rollback Snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose that rollback is destructive, irreversible, or that a confirmation/preview step exists. The confirm parameter's semantics are only in the schema, leaving a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence with no redundant wording, clearly naming the action and source. It could include a safety note without sacrificing brevity, but it is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool's two-phase confirm flow (preview vs execute) and potential destructiveness are absent from the description. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is under-specified for a rollback operation of this complexity.

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%, with both parameters clearly described. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 restores a project to a prior snapshot, identifying the storage location. It is distinct from sibling story_snapshot (which creates snapshots), though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The phrase 'previous snapshot' slightly undersells that any snapshot can be selected via snapshotId.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use rollback versus sibling tools like story_snapshot. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage hint (preview vs execute) comes from the schema, not the description.

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