ck_rollback

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses safety-check, audit creation, and four modes. However, it does not explicitly state that rollback is destructive or that it modifies git history, though implied. Still above average.

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?

Single paragraph with clear sentences covering purpose, behavior, and modes. Efficient but could be better structured (e.g., bullet list for modes). No wasted words.

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?

Covers core functionality and safety, but lacks prerequisites (e.g., git repo, permissions) and output schema info (though output schema exists). Adequate but not comprehensive for a complex tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description recaps mode options but adds little extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Execute a governed rollback of an agent's work.' It elaborates with specific actions (git checkpoint, revert, safety check, audit finding) and four modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ck_git_commit or ck_session.

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?

Provides context on when rollback is used (after tasks, with checkpoint) and safety-checked behavior, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like ck_git_commit or ck_session. The lack of 'when not to use' is a minor gap.

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