rollback_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation but does not mention side effects, persistence, reversibility, prerequisites, or what happens to the session state after the rollback.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise even though other dimensions suffer from the brevity.

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 that this is a stateful mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, a one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine how the rollback affects learning progress, review state, or whether reason/request_id are required in specific flows.

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%, so the description needs to compensate. It partially clarifies target_node_id by implying it should be an earlier node, but it does not explain session_id, reason, or request_id, nor their roles or optionality.

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 ('Move'), a clear resource ('teaching focus'), and a precise direction ('back to an earlier node'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like advance_unit or start_unit.

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 about when rollback_unit should be used versus alternatives such as advance_unit, check_advance_unit, or start_unit. The word 'back' implies a reverse-navigation use case, but this is inference rather than explicit direction.

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