design_rollback

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

The description clearly indicates a destructive action by using 'Discard' and scopes that action to pending changes only, which is useful. With no annotations provided, it still omits important behavioral details such as irreversibility, whether committed changes are entirely unaffected, and any side effects on the PCB/IR consistency.

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?

A single sentence conveys the action, scope, and target without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but because it is a destructive operation with no annotations, it should at least mention reversibility and the relationship to design_commit. The absence of any usage caveats leaves a modest but real completeness 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the 100% schema coverage is trivially complete and the description does not need to document parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 names a specific action ('Discard') and a precise resource ('pending PCB and semantic Circuit IR changes'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also naturally contrasts with the sibling design_commit, aiding disambiguation.

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 word 'pending' implies this is for uncommitted changes, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus design_commit, nor does it provide exclusions or workflow guidance.

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