ouroboros_evolve_rewind

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 clearly states the destructive action ('Truncates all generations after the target'), the emitted event, and the continuation capability. This is strong for a mutation tool, though it omits any mention of error handling or permissions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful behavioral information (truncation, event, continuation) with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the action, the destructive scope, the event emitted, and that evolution can resume. Minor gaps like prerequisites or error conditions are not required for basic invocation.

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%, with clear descriptions for lineage_id and to_generation (inclusive). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Rewind an evolutionary lineage to a specific generation.' It also explains the effect (truncating generations after the target) and a distinguishing event (emits lineage.rewound), which differentiates it from forward-stepping tools like ouroboros_evolve_step.

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 provides clear context: rewinds to a generation, truncates subsequent ones, and allows the lineage to continue. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is well enough described to infer when to use the tool.

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