reject_all_files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it discloses the .bridge.bak byte-level backup mechanism, states that modified files are overwritten and the journal is cleared, and warns that rollbacks may fail (pointing to the force variant). That is material behavioral context beyond what the annotations carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive warning and organized into labeled sections (What it does, When to use, When NOT, Side effects, Returns), which makes scanning fast. Minor redundancy: the Returns section restates what an output schema already covers, and 'Parameters: None.' is padding, but neither obscures the essentials.

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 zero-parameter destructive rollback, the description covers purpose, exclusions, side effects, backup mechanism, journal clearing, and the failure caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call this or its siblings is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema is trivially complete; the description's 'Parameters: None.' is consistent with that. No extra meaning is needed or possible here, capping the realistic value at the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and scope: rolls back byte-for-byte all files modified in the current journal session. Together with the name and the explicit 'Destructive:' lead-in, an agent can distinguish this bulk rollback from single-file or force variants without reading any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('completely discard all recent changes') and when-not-to-use with named alternatives: reject_file_changes for a single file and reject_all_files_force when rollbacks may fail. Both exclusions and the sibling routing are spelled out rather than implied.

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