rollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE in execute mode,' explains that preview changes nothing, requires a confirmation token for execute, permanently discards memories, and mentions the failure mode `state_changed_since_preview` and audit trail writing.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, numbered steps, and a note on failure handling. It is somewhat long but each sentence adds necessary value for a destructive two-stage tool.

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, no annotations, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers the full workflow, danger, token requirement, failure condition, and audit trail without needing to explain return values due to the output schema.

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 must compensate. It explains the semantics of mode, confirmation_token, and reason, and implies snapshot_id as the checkpoint identifier. However, it does not explicitly describe idempotency_key, though it is optional. This is a minor gap given the strong coverage of the critical parameters.

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: 'Restore the project to a checkpoint.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like snapshot (creating checkpoints) and diff (comparing states).

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?

The description provides clear procedural context: two stages must run in order (preview then execute), and it explains the requirements for each mode. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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