rollback_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It reveals the tool reverses a mutation and requires user confirmation before execution, which is important. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is destructive, permanent, or irreversible, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects beyond the confirmation requirement.

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 extremely concise – two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second highlights a critical safety note. No redundant or filler content; every word serves a purpose.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core action and the key prerequisite (user confirmation). It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but for a simple mutation tool with a well-covered schema, it is adequate. A more detailed note on permanent effects would push it to a 5.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces the confirm parameter's requirement ('confirma con el usuario antes de ejecutar con confirm=true'), but this essentially repeats the schema's existing description ('Debe ser true para confirmar. Pregunta al usuario antes.'). It adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: 'Revierte una mutacion usando un rollback snapshot' – a specific verb (revert) and resource (mutation using a rollback snapshot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rollback_list, which lists snapshots, and history_clear, which clears history.

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 includes a critical safety instruction: 'confirma con el usuario antes de ejecutar con confirm=true.' It provides clear context on when to use the tool (when a rollback snapshot exists) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is helpful but lacks direct comparison to other tools.

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