restore_from_reflog_entry

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive mutation of branch head state but says nothing about reversibility, whether subsequent versions become unreachable, required permissions, or what is returned. Worse, the bulk of the text is an unrelated promotional block that could make an agent believe this tool relates to calibration or textures.

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 one relevant sentence is well front-loaded, but it is followed by four lines of marketing copy that do not belong in a tool definition and actively misrepresent the tool's domain. Signal-to-noise is poor.

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?

This is a mutating history operation with no annotations, no output schema, and parameters largely undocumented. An agent lacks the information needed to call it safely: no statement of blast radius, no return shape, and no explanation of required arguments.

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 only 33% (only 'target' has a default note), and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. The required reflog_id and the opaque 'operator' field are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess what values are valid.

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 first sentence gives a concrete verb and object (snap a branch back to a recorded head state), which is understandable in isolation. However, it never distinguishes this from closely related siblings such as get_reflog_entry, show_reflog, undo_last_head_change, or rollback_design_version. The remaining four lines describe calibration, textures, and pricing, which have nothing to do with restoring a reflog entry and dilute the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus show_reflog/get_reflog_entry (inspect) or undo_last_head_change (undo the most recent move). No prerequisites, no warning about discarding commits/versions made after the target head, and no mention of what 'recorded head state' means in context. The upsell block provides no usage direction.

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