rollback_to_feature

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

With no annotations, the description clearly states the tool is reversible, suspends features, and does not delete. It also describes the return value structure. The behavioral traits are well disclosed beyond the minimal.

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 a bit verbose with both Spanish and English translations, but it is structured with sections for description, args, returns, and related tools. Could be 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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the action, reversibility, return values, and related tools. It adequately addresses 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the parameter is an 'exact feature name' with an example. This compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 back the feature tree to just before a named feature, suspending it and everything after. It distinguishes itself from siblings like undo, rollback_to_end, and set_component_suppression by specifying it's the reversible, no-deletion alternative.

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 mentions when to use (instead of deleting a feature) and provides related tools (rollback_to_end for restore, set_component_suppression as assembly-level equivalent, undo as coarse and not reversible). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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