ck_rollback

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), description adds that it creates an audit finding on every rollback and refuses if downstream tasks depend on changes. This provides critical behavioral context.

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?

Description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.

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's complexity (5 parameters, 4 modes, output schema exists), the description covers safety, audit, git checkpoint, all modes, and parameter requirements. The output schema handles return values, so no gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds defaults (mode defaults to status) and indicates conditional requirements (task_id required for certain modes). The reason parameter's purpose in audit finding is clarified.

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?

Description starts with 'Execute a governed rollback of an agent's work,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It lists four modes (checkpoint, execute, status, list) which distinguish it from sibling checkpoint tools like ck_checkpoint_create and ck_checkpoint_restore.

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?

Description explains when to use: for rollback with safety check (refuses if downstream dependencies). It implicitly excludes other scenarios but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use. The safety check provides clear context.

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