rollback_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the decision logic: checks if originals exist, reports no rollback, or attempts to restore. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive, any side effects, or failure handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise, using a brief paragraph and an ordered Args/Returns structure. It provides necessary detail without unnecessary length, though a bit more structure could improve scannability.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main process and return value. However, absence of annotations means safety/error context is missing, and the description does not explicitly mention permissions or potential failures, leaving completeness slightly incomplete.

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%, but the description defines snapshot_id as 'ID del snapshot [CHECKPOINT SNAPSHOT] guardado,' adding meaningful context beyond the schema's bare integer type. This compensates well for the lack of property descriptions.

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 'Revierte un checkpoint usando el snapshot guardado previamente' and details the rollback process. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compress_hipocampo and delete_hipocampo.

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 implies usage by explaining when rollback is needed (when original IDs were compressed and deleted), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. It provides context but lacks direct 'when to use' guidance.

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