memory.change.rollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one key behavioral trait: it only creates a proposal, not a direct reactivation. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens after the proposal is created. This is minimal 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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, conciseness is achieved at the expense of valuable information. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one leaves out critical details, making it borderline under-specified.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the concept of a rollback proposal, the meaning of expected_revision_id versus restore_revision_id, the return value, or error conditions. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (family_id, restore_revision_id, expected_revision_id, reason). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond what the names imply, which is insufficient for compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 creates a rollback proposal, which is a specific verb+resource. The behavioral note ('nunca reativa a revisão histórica diretamente') adds nuance. However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like memory.change.propose, which might also involve proposals, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The behavioral note about not directly reactivating historical revisions is a caution, but it doesn't provide context for selection. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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