rollback_to_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the return value {rolled_back_to: None, ok} and that it reactivates operations. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible, if it triggers any side effects, or if there are any authorization requirements. Adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences plus a return value line, front-loaded with the purpose. Bilingual content adds slight redundancy but does not harm clarity. No unnecessary words, though could drop Spanish for conciseness.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description explains its function and return value adequately. It does not cover error cases or limitations, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Per guidelines, baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool rolls the feature tree forward to the end, restoring everything suspended by rollback_to_feature. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from its sibling rollback_to_feature by indicating it is the inverse operation.

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?

Description implies it should be used after a rollback_to_feature call to restore suspended operations. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context makes the usage clear. Could be more explicit about prerequisites, but adequate.

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