rollback_to_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It provides important behavioral context: rollback uses content-addressable storage, no data is lost, and only the current world pointer changes. This assures the agent that the operation is non-destructive and explains the underlying mechanism. It doesn't cover error cases or permissions, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 only two sentences, with the main action immediately stated and no filler. The additional detail about content-addressable storage is relevant and earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid mental model: the action, the safety properties, and the underlying mechanism. It doesn't mention how to obtain a valid worldHash or the return value, but those are not necessary for basic usage, especially given the sibling list_world_history_tool likely provides hashes. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to worldHash by explaining 'content-addressable storage' and 'world pointer', implying worldHash is a reference to a prior state. However, it does not explicitly define projectId or the exact relationship between the parameters beyond what the names suggest.

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's action: 'Revert the synthesis theory to a prior world state.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like undo_last_operations_tool by framing the action as reverting to a specific state via a world hash.

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 when to use the tool (when a prior world state needs to be restored) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not compare with sibling tools such as undo_last_operations_tool or list_world_history_tool, so usage context is only inferred.

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