rollback_to_feature

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states reversibility, that nothing is destroyed (nada se destruye), and that it suspends the feature and everything after. Provides clear behavioral context beyond basic read/write.

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?

Description is structured with separate sections for what it does, reversibility, args, returns, and related. However, it is bilingual (Spanish and English) adding some redundancy; could be slightly more concise.

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 1 parameter and no output schema, description covers the return shape, mentions exact naming, and lists related tools. All necessary context for correct usage is present.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds example value 'Cortar-Extruir1' and specifies 'exact feature name'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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?

Clearly states verb 'roll back' and resource 'feature tree to just BEFORE the named feature'. Distinguishes from deletion-based undo by calling it the 'no-deletion way', and names alternative rollback_to_end for restoration.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'no-deletion way to undo a wrong feature'. Tells when not to use by mentioning alternatives: rollback_to_end for restore, set_component_suppression for assembly-level, undo as coarse not reversible.

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