Code MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Rollback all changes') but lacks critical details: what constitutes 'changes' (files, commands, state?), whether rollback is reversible, permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. For a potentially destructive tool, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear scope, with every word earning its place.

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 potentially destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'rollback' entails operationally, what gets restored/removed, success/failure indicators, or system state after execution. The context demands more behavioral disclosure than provided.

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 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states about 'confirm' and 'preserveUnstaged'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Rollback all changes') and target scope ('made in the current AI session'), using precise verb+resource language. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'end_coding_session' or 'get_session_history' by focusing on reversal of modifications rather than session management or information retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in an active session), exclusions (e.g., cannot rollback after certain actions), or related tools (e.g., 'preview_changes' before rollback). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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