rollback_to_end

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool restores all suspended operations and returns a specific value. This is transparent for a simple tool, though it does not discuss error cases or what happens if no rollback is active.

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 two short sentences plus a return value example. It is front-loaded with the Spanish and English explanations, no filler. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, the effect, and the return format. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description naturally cannot add parameter info beyond the schema. As per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4, and the description adds no extraneous information.

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 rolls the feature tree forward to the end, undoing a prior rollback_to_feature. It uses a specific verb ('restaurar'/'roll forward') and explicitly references the sibling tool rollback_to_feature, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 use after a rollback_to_feature has been executed, but it does not explicitly exclude cases where no such rollback was done or compare with alternatives like undo. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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